Posted on 10/11/2004 11:31:00 AM PDT by Mia T
semantic games:
PREEMPTIVE v. PREVENTIVE WAR
avid E. Sanger of The New York Times, and Joseph Nye of Harvard University and the clinton administration, are playing semantic games here.
Surely they know that, strictly speaking, the Bush Doctrine was never about preemptive war, which requires imminent threat. The Bush Doctrine has always been about gathering threat and preventive war. |
|
October 11, 2004
NEWS ANALYSIS: FOREIGN POLICY
A Doctrine Under Pressure: Pre-emption Is Redefined
By DAVID E. SANGER
Traditionally, pre-empting an enemy is all about urgency, striking before the enemy strikes. In the prelude to the invasion in March of last year, Mr. Bush and his aides stopping short of saying Saddam Hussein posed an "imminent" threat. Still, they used urgent-sounding language at every turn to explain why they could not afford to wait for inspectors to complete their work, or for the United Nations Security Council to come to a consensus on authorizing military action. "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud," he said in a speech delivered Oct. 7, 2002.
But the C.I.A. report released last week, written by Charles A. Duelfer, described the evidence as anything but clear and the peril as far from urgent. Mr. Hussein's military power began waning after the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the report concluded. While Mr. Hussein most probably wanted to rebuild his illicit weapons, there is no evidence he had started by the time Mr. Bush was delivering that speech.
So over the last five days, with some subtle changes of language and a new previously undiscussed justification for the war, Mr. Bush appears to have expanded the conditions for a pre-emptive military strike. He no longer talks about urgency. Instead, for the first time, he has begun to argue that a military invasion is justified if an opponent is seeking to avoid United Nations sanctions - "gaming the system" in his words.
"We did not find the stockpiles we thought were there," Mr. Bush told supporters in Waterloo, Iowa, on Saturday. "But I want you to remember what the Duelfer report said. It said that Saddam Hussein was gaming the oil-for-food program to get rid of sanctions. And why? Because he had the capability and knowledge to rebuild his weapon programs. And the great danger we face in the world today is that a terrorist organization could end up with weapons of mass destruction."
Then, returning to the line he has used in his debates with Senator John Kerry, and one that always elicits applause, he added: "Knowing what I know today, I would have made the same decision. The world is safer with Saddam in a prison cell."
Taken at face value, Mr. Bush appears to be saying that under his new standard, a country merely has to be thinking about developing illicit weapons at some time. "He's saying intent is enough," said Joseph Nye, a Harvard professor who under the Clinton administration headed the National Intelligence Council, the group that assesses for the president when countries have trespassed that hard-to-define line.
"The classical definition for pre-emption was 'imminent threat,' " Mr. Nye said. Then, with the development of the president's "National Security Policy of the United States," that moved to something less than imminent, because, as Mr. Bush argued, it is often hard to know when a country is about to attack. Now, said Mr. Nye, "the Duelfer report pushed him into a box where capability is not the standard, but merely intention."
Of course, discerning changes of policy in the heat of a political campaign is always risky. Candidates will often push a policy or a doctrine to the breaking point to differentiate themselves from their opponents. So as the campaign has come down to its last three weeks, Mr. Bush has torqued his stump speech to make it clear that in a post-Sept. 11 world, he will strike quickly, while Mr. Kerry hesitates, negotiates or creates a "global test" for action.
The "global test" phrase comes from a statement by Mr. Kerry in the first presidential debate that Mr. Bush now regularly throws back at him. "Now he says he wants a global test before we take action to defend our security," Mr. Bush said on Saturday in Chanhassen, Minn., waiting for the crowd to yell "Boo!"
When the audience obliged, he added that "The problem is that the senator can never pass his own test," going on to list military action that Mr. Kerry has opposed, including in the Persian Gulf war.
In fact, Mr. Kerry has not done much to define when he would take pre-emptive action. He has said he would reserve the right, and criticized Mr. Bush for making pre-emption a doctrine. In the second debate on Friday, Mr. Kerry made it clear that Iraq did not meet his test: "Gut-check time," he said. "Was this really going to war as a last resort?"
But when the subject turned to Iran, Mr. Kerry tried to sound more hard-line than Mr. Bush, who he said had ignored nuclear developments in both Iran and North Korea. "If we have to get tough with Iran, believe me, we will get tough," he said, without describing how close he would let the country get to a nuclear weapon before acting. Mr. Bush, in an interview with The New York Times in August, declined to draw that line, either.
The result is that America's allies - and perhaps its voters - are more confused than ever about what will drive Washington to war. To listen to Mr. Bush in the last few days, a country that merely desires to obtain the world's worst weapons is a potential target - but he has clearly avoided threatening Iran and North Korea, the two nations racing fastest toward such weapons. To listen to Mr. Kerry, Iraq's intentions to rebuild its arsenal some day clearly did not meet the Kerry test: Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, he said the other day, "may well be the last two people on the planet who won't face the truth about Iraq."
It may be that the election must pass before Washington sends a clear signal. "If I had a piece of advice for America's allies," a senior foreign policy adviser to Mr. Bush said a few weeks ago, "it's this: Turn your television sets off until this is all over."
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top |
addam Hussein was a lethally dangerous man before George Bush nailed him.
This is the inescapable, bottom-line conclusion of arms inspector Charles Duelfer. (Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD, 30 September 2004)
DUELFER REPORT COROLLARY
If we accept Duelfer's findings, then we must also accept the corollary: If Saddam Hussein was a lethally dangerous man, then so too is John Kerry. As Kerry's 34-year history... and his own words... and his two debates... confirm, a Commander-in-Chief Kerry would never, ever have acted preemptively to remove Saddam Hussein.
SECURITY MOMS-- PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION!
Because of the Duelfer Report corollary, old media, in the throes of death and in the tank for Kerry even before Rather, is ignoring the essence of the Duelfer report, i.e., is ignoring the the following revelations: (1) that the Kerry "coalition," corrupted by Saddam, was--and is--illusory (2) that the sanctions were shackled by said corruption, and (3) that Saddam's intent was to reconstitute his WMD programs as soon as sanctions were lifted.
Instead of focusing on the essence of the report, old media is focusing on "no WMDs," years-old news and a matter of relevance to presidential fitness only insofar as it exposes Kerry's lack thereof. (A relevance, which, of course, old media is choosing to ignore.) During his 34 years on the public stage, John Kerry did his damnedest to decimate America's intelligence (as well as military) capacity. (And now this person faults Bush for errors traceable to lousy intelligence. Imagine!)
SECURITY MOMS AND ALL AMERICANS, BEWARE!
It is critical that you:
BACK TO THE FUTURE
Mr. Kerry engages in fallacious ex post facto reasoning (as well as reflexive flip-flopping) when he argues, "We should not have gone to war, knowing the information we know today.... I would not have gone to war knowing there was no imminent threat, weapons of mass destruction, there was no connection with al Qaeda and to Saddam Hussein."
As if the commander-in-chief enjoys the luxury of retroactive decision-making....
How could John Kerry make an error in logic so obvious, so beyond surreal? He is an idiot? Or does he simply think we are?
In this post-9/11 world, a commander-in-chief has to make decisions of war and peace, life and death, based on imperfect information. We cannot afford in that position someone who requires certain knowledge of outcome before acting. We cannot afford in that position someone who views the War on Terror as not war but criminal enterprise. We cannot afford in that position someone who requires "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and "passing a global test" and "a plan to win the peace" before acting to protect us. We cannot afford in that position a weak-kneed, coreless opportunist like John Kerry.
Is there any doubt that John Kerry would never act preemptively to protect America?
KERRY'S IRAQ LIES:
KERRY UP CLOSE
We have observed John Kerry up close for more than a year now.
We see someone who alternates between incredible and incoherent.
We see someone who is clueless about winning the War on Terror.
We see someone who favors demagoguery over rational argument, and ideology and reacquisition of power over national security.
We see someone whose mindset is inextricably bound to the Left's failed, tortuous, reckless schemes, relics of a different time, a different war and a different enemy.
We see a poseur, a dilettante. Someone always on the make. Someone for whom windsurfing in Nantucket trumps briefings in D.C.
("Well, I haven't been briefed [about the new al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States] yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time.")
How can you put your children's lives in his hands?
Comment: The following is an excerpt from the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD, dated 30 September 2004, written by Charles Duelfer. The excerpt lists the Key Findings under the heading of "Regime Strategic Intent."
What is worth noting is that the Saddam regime discovered it could corrupt the UN Oil For Food program, the foreign exchange derived from the corruption being used to enhance WMD capabilities.
Key Findings
Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.
Saddam totally dominated the Regime's strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq's strategic policy.
Saddam's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspectionsóto gain support for lifting sanctionsówith his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.
The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad's economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.
By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.
Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capabilityówhich was essentially destroyed in 1991óafter sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capabilityóin an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risksóbut he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.
Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq's principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.
Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam's belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam's view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi'a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.
The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them. |
The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
Yesterday, at the "progressive," i.e., ultra-extremist left-wing liberal, "Take Back America" confab, Mr. Soros confirmed the obvious: 9/11 was dispositive for the Dems; that is, 9/11 accelerated what eight years of the clintons had set into motion, namely, the demise of a Democratic party that is increasingly irrelevant, unflinchingly corrupt, unwaveringly self-serving, chronically moribund and above all, lethally, seditiously dangerous.
"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Apparently missing the irony, George Soros chastised America with these words even as he was trying his $25,000,000, 527-end-run damnedest to render himself "more equal than others" in order to foist his radical, paranoic, deadly dementia on an entire nation.
"Animal Farm" is George Orwell's satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution; but it could just as easily be the story of the Democratic Party of today, with the
its porcine manifestation.
SOROS TSURIS
Soros' little speech reveals everything we need to know about the Left, to wit:
Soros is correct when he states that each of the two pillars of the Bush Doctine--the United States maintenance of absolute military superiority and the United States right of preemptive action--are "valid propositions" [in a post-9/11 world].
But when he proceeds from there to argue that the validity of each of these two [essential] pillars is somehow nullified by the resultant unequalled power that these two pillars, when taken together, vest in the United States, rational thought and national-security primacy give way to dogmatic Leftist neo-neoliberal ideology.
What is, in fact, "inviolate" here is the neo-neoliberal doctrine of U.S. sovereignty, which states simply that there must be none, that we must yield our sovereignty to the United Nations. Because this Leftist tenet is inviolate, and because it is the antithesis of the concept of U.S. sovereignty enunciated by the Bush Doctrine and the concept of U.S. sovereignty required by the War on Terror, rabid Leftists like Soros conclude that we must trash the latter two inconvenient concepts--even if critical to the survival of our country.
It is precisely here where Soros and the Left fail utterly to understand the War on Terror. They cannot see beyond their own ideology and lust for power. They have become a danger to this country no less lethal than the terrorists they aid and abet.
|
THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004 |
pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
As long as you've got a rich man on your arm, you don't need a big bag.
--Elizabeth Rickard
The $100 billion Iraqi Oil for Food program was by far the largest relief operation in the history of the United Nations. By extension, it's rapidly becoming the U.N.'s largest-ever scandal....
Those included rewarding friends and allies world-wide with oil allocations on very favorable terms, as well as extracting large kickbacks from oil traders and suppliers of humanitarian goods....
There can be little doubt that U.N. mismanagement contributed greatly to the negative perception of the anti-Saddam containment policy. There is also little doubt that the reward and kickback scheme--as well the possibility of exposure--was a factor as some countries weighed whether to back U.S.-led regime change in Iraq. There is even reason to suspect that some of the Saddam friends and allies who benefited may have been members of the U.N. Secretariat.
Oil for Scandal
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
NEW! compleatjohnkerry.blogspot.com
NEW! unfitforcommand.blogspot.com
johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:01 a.m.eave it to the French to make pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic all the rage.
They and their moneygrubbing, Oil-for-Food defrauding cohorts abroad, and their power-hungry would-be terrorist sympathizers here, are all sporting "THE LOOK."
(How many of those oh so trendy Kerry-clinton-Kennedy hate-America, blame-America-first sound bites will Al-Jazeera broadcast today?)
The trusty triad's half-truths, exaggerations and outright lies, confounded by fog of war, vagaries of peace and uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds, remind us that things are not always what they first seem. The UN Oil-for-Food scandal, for example, has shown us it was not "going to war with Iraq" that was "all about oil," but rather, "not going to war with Iraq." The Left, we now see, had that one, (as they have most things), exactly backward.
The dernier cri of seditious and corrupt Leftists everywhere, pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic renders the Left, irrespective of policy, no less dangerous to Western civilization than the terrorists they aid and abet.
A suggested mass E-mailing---just copy and paste:
subject: YOO-HOO! SECURITY MOMS:
John Kerry
John Kerry
"The Bush Administration is so entralled by the idea of preemption and American military might. This is the consequence of the policy that regards legitimacy as largely a product of force and victory as primarily a triump of arms."
John Kerry
John Kerry
George Bush
Dick Cheney
John Kerry
OUR CHILDREN AND THE KERRY PERIL:
in Kerry's own words
THE TERRORISTS ARE TARGETING YOUR KIDS! (ABC report)
"We were not at war in the 1990s."
(missing the point entirely that
the War on Terror began in earnest
with the bombing of the WTC in 1993
and bin Laden's subsequent repeated (and unanswered)
declarations and acts of war against America
throughout the clinton years).
Democratic presidential debate, January 29, 2004, Greenville, S.C.
COUNCIL FOR FOREIGN RELATIONS , 3 December 2003
acceptance speech, July 29, 2004
State of the Union Address, The U.S. Capitol, January 28, 2003
"I listened to what Senator Kerry had to say in Boston [Kerry acceptance speech], and, with all due respect to the Senator, he views the world as if we had never been attacked on September 11th. The job of the Commander-in-Chief, as he sees it, is to use America's military strength to respond to attacks. But September 11th showed us, as surely as anything can, that we must act against gathering dangers - not wait for to be attacked. That awful day left some 3,000 of our fellow citizens dead, and everything we have learned since tells us the terrorists would do worse if they could, and that they will even use chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons against us if they can. In the world we live in now, responding to attacks is not enough. We must do everything in our power to prevent attacks -- and that includes using military force."
PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE ONE:
LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.
What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?
KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.... But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons....
LEHRER: Ninety seconds.
BUSH: Let me -- I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test.
My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.
Good Morning America
September 29, 2004
JOHN KERRY:
"We should not have gone to war, knowing the information we know today....
DIANE SAWYER:
"So, it was not worth it."
JOHN KERRY:
"You should not -- eh -- it depends on the outcome, ultimately, and that depends on the leadership. And we need better leadership to get the job done successfully. I would not have gone to war knowing there was no imminent threat, weapons of mass destruction, there was no connection with al Qaeda and to Saddam Hussein. The president -- eh -- misled the American people. Plain and simple. Bottom line."
DIANE SAWYER:
"So, if it turns out okay, it was worth it? -- "
JOHN KERRY (interrupts) :
"No."
DIANE SAWYER:
"...but now it wasn -- ?"
JOHN KERRY (interrupts again) :
"It was a mistake to do what he did but we have to succeed now that we've done it.
Good Morning America
September 29, 2004
for discussion, goto:
Diane Sawyer Nails Kerry Peril (PREEMPTION + KERRY'S EX POST FACTO REASONING)
Larry King Live
July 8, 2004
"Well, I haven't been briefed [about the new al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States] yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven't had time."
Larry King Live, July 8, 2004
(NB: Radio City, July 8, 2004, Nantucket, July 17, 2004)
![]() (viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE) |
election update!
JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT~THE SERIES
DEBATE 2: Bush KOs Kerry
(The Lethal Danger of Kerry-Edwards + Old Media)
DUELFER REPORT ON IRAQ RENDERS KERRY "A COMPLACENT FOOL" OR "AN UTTER FRAUD"
WHICH DANGEROUS MAN?
YOO-HOO! SECURITY MOMS:
THE TERRORISTS ARE TARGETING YOUR KIDS!
DEBATE ONE
NO GYP SHEET
Est-ce que je peux?
préemption et l'essai global
KERRY'S "GLOBAL TEST" FOR PREEMPTION:
WHY SECURITY MOMS WILL VOTE FOR BUSH
Diane Sawyer Nails Kerry Peril
PREEMPTION + KERRY'S EX POST FACTO REASONING
WINDSURFER WATERLOO
why the surfboard--not the snowboard--is (to mix war metaphors) Kerry's Achilles' heel
Windsurfing in the Persian Gulf
John "One Position on Iraq" Kerry's 1971 Replay
YOO-HOO DAN RATHER!
KERRY'S BELATED "HONORABLE" DISCHARGE:
Is a less-than-honorable discharge and clinton "pardon" behind Kerry's refusal to sign form 180 to release ALL of his records?
RATHERGATE IS ANOTHER WATERGATE: The Nexus
CARL BERNSTEIN: RATHERGATE MAY BE ANOTHER WATERGATE
CLUELESS: O'REILLY AND PODHORETZ ON RATHERGATE
THE KERRY-RATHER-BARNES FORGERIES DECONSTRUCTED
HEAR THE FIRST VEEP DEBATE NOW! (the whole ball of wax)
CHENEY WARNS AMERICA: THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT OUR SURVIVAL
KERRY-EDWARDS TRIES TO SHUT DOWN DEBATE
KERRY'S VIETNAM FIXATION
PART 1: advice from bill
Kerry's new W offensive
YOO-HOO! UNDECIDEDS + "PERSUADABLES"
HEAR THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY DOESN'T WANT YOU TO HEAR
(WHY INFORMED, RATIONAL DEMOCRATS WILL VOTE FOR BUSH)
DECONSTRUCTING ZELL MILLER
EXPLOITING MAX CLELAND
Kerry is UNFIT #21: THUMBSUCKER SERIES
BOARDHEAD TO THE RESCUE
The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)
Kerry is UNFIT #20: THUMBSUCKER SERIES
PREEMPTION-(the whole ball of wax)
CONTEMPLATING KERRY'S "GUT"
A PRESIDENT KERRY MAY BE ABHORRENT
...BUT IS IT EVEN CONSTITUTIONAL?
getting kerry's goat
john kerry lacks presidential temperament
Two Psychologists on Kerry: Dangerous on National Security
YOO-HOO! followthemoney.org. . .
OVER HERE!
"bombastic ass" is not the antidote to "boorish ass"
(or why Keith Olbermann Cannot Do Cleanup for Chris Matthews)
UNFIT #19:
JOHN KERRY'S "MORE SENSITIVE WAR ON TERROR"
THE COMPLEAT JOHN KERRY
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA
Kerry, NOT Bush, paralyzed by 9/11 attacks
Hear Kerry admit he could not think
THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES 3
UNFIT #10: 9/10 mindset
THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES 2
KERRY-DEMOCRAT CONTEMPT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY[annotated]
THE DEMOCRATS-ARE-GONNA-GET-US-KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES1
dox in sox on lummox in box on fox
THE REAL "REAL DEAL"
(what Kerry's commanders and crewmates REALLY think of him--with transcripts)
Did John Kerry pick a running mate or hire a lawyer when he selected John Edwards?
THE MAN FROM HOPE: been there, done that
"Hope is on the way!" (the scoop)
THE TERRORISTS' USEFUL IDIOTS
all the usual suspects
A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for the Terrorists
ELECTION BOTTOM LINE:
TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER or TERRORIST ANNIHILATOR
JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT SERIES: 8/10/04 UPDATE!
taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT SERIES:
taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
UNFIT #9-JOHN KERRY: DEADLY OPPORTUNIST
SELF-CONFESSED WAR CRIMlNAL MORPHS INTO SELF-PROMOTER WAR HERO
UNFIT #6: The Deadly Kerry-Hollywood Axis
HOW CAN YOU PUT YOUR CHILDREN'S LIVES IN ITS HANDS?
UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#1-making the tough choices in a post-9/11 world
UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#2-understanding the job description
UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#3-sang-froid and the "nuclear" button
UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#4 - Kerry champions tolerance for terrorists
sanitizing evil
Kerry Cabal Censors Nick Berg Decapitation
"Loose Cannon" Kerry's AWOL/PURPLE-HEART FRAUD
pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
USEFUL IDIOTS
MOORE IS LESS--THE MOVIE
The Cycle of Violence:
NOW WITH HYPERLINKED INSTRUCTION MANUAL
JOHN KERRY'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans
bill clinton, boy "genius," unwittingly bares all on BBC
deconstructing clinton "just because I could"
vetting missus clinton...
The Parallel Universe of Jamie Gorelick
nepotism + tokenism = a nancy pelosi
(or a hillary clinton)
Kerry's Belated Condemnation Focuses on Process
Kerry Lacks Moral Authority to Condemn Content
"CRY BUSH" + Iraqi-Prisoner "Abuse"
What are the Dems up to?
DON'T BELIEVE YOUR LYING EARS (The Perjurer Returns)
(Clinton: Claims I Turned Down Bin Laden are 'Bull')
The Mary Jo White Memo:
Documentation of clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance
What is the REAL Reason for Gorelick's Wall?
giant sucking sound
KERRY MAKES DUKAKIS LOOK CONSERVATIVE, SMART + JUDICIOUS
- Q ERTY6 utter failureBUMP
- Lib Author Regrets Voting (TWICE!) for clinton
"Sickened" by clinton's Failure to Protect America from Terrorism
MUST-READ BOOK FOR DEMOCRATS:
How clintons' Failures Unleashed Global Terror
(Who in his right mind would ever want the clintons back in the Oval Office?)
The Man Who Warned America
(Why a Rapist is Not a Fit President)
UDAY: "The end is near this time I think the Americans are serious, Bush is not like Clinton."
BTTT
why isn't my name in the author slot sufficient?
Because, in the Topics sidebars, the author slot doesn't appear (only the title). Those of us who look forward to your articles will be able to identify them much more easily. Surely you've noticed how people do it all the time for authors such as Walter E. Williams, Neal Boortz, Michael Savage, Matt Drudge, and others whose names escape me at the moment.
thx. :)
Right back at you, big time.
Sheesh. What a maroon.
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.