Having said what I said earlier about the empty seats at the Summer Olympics and Greece's role in that, I'll say this as well:
Hats off to Greece for a staggeringly successful staging of the Olympic Games. They were safe, peaceful, interesting, and highly competitive. I enjoyed watching as much as I could and there were many thrilling moments.
And I was impressed by the Closing Ceremonies tonight as I was earlier with the Opening Ceremonies. They were a magnificently planned and delivered show of class and culture. Elegant and classy. And a celebration of the uniqueness and antiquity of Greek Culture. Bravo!
Unfortunately, I chose to contrast it with the MTV Video Music Awards which were on at the same time. I flipped back and forth. MTV, and all the music and Hollywood star power that they put on display, did not fare well in the comparison of class and culture.
And the fact that I spent any time at all watching MTV's VMA's unfortunately says too much about the state of my culture.
Congratulations to the people of Greece for a fine national effort and for the success of the games.
Sunday, August 29, 2004
Friday, August 27, 2004
A Small but Significant Word
John Kerry enlisted in the U.S Naval Reserves, not the active duty U.S. Navy according to a passage in the book that is dominating the presidential campaign season: John O'Neill's book "Unfit for Command".
That single detail is the most consequential fact to emerge in the midst of the other allegations: that Kerry didn't earn his medals, that he used his medals to get sent home, that he fabricated his testimony to Congress on atrocities and his trip to Cambodia. His enlistment in the Reserves rather than the active Navy is a matter of public record and is either true or not true. The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth have the record.
Why is this seemingly inconsequential detail important to me?
Because Kerry and his supporters have for a year now been besmirching President Bush's service in the National Guard during the Vietnam era as not being honorable. And every time they ridicule the National Guard they ridicule me. I am a veteran of both the active duty U.S. Air Force (8 years) and of the Illinois National Guard (3 years).
In my particular case I was never deployed during my tenure in the Guard but my unit was repeatedly deployed all over the world shortly after I separated. I was ready to deploy and I consider my service to be honorable. I take it as a deeply personal affront every time Kerry or his surrogates imply or directly state that service in the National Guard is less than honorable.
Kerry and his true believers have been drawing direct contrasts to his service and Bush's. They say directly that Bush, a son of privelege, "hid out" in the National Guard to avoid service. By contrast Kerry, a son of privelege, said "Send Me" and enlisted active duty to go to war.
Nice story. But, like the other issues related to his service, the Swifties who served with him have exposed it as a lie. Kerry did not enlist in the Navy knowing that he would be sent. He enlisted in the Naval Reserves not knowing.
To me the National Guard and the Naval Reserves have exactly the same standing. They are both honorable service to our country. And everyone who enlists in the National Guard or in the Naval Reserves know at least two things:
1. You may get deployed to a hostile combat zone at any time
2. You have no control over that decision. You may go. You may not go. It depends on circumstances and on the decisions of politicians and commanders. It doesn't reflect dishonor if you don't get deployed. It doesn't particularly reflect valor if you do get deployed. It's what you signed up for.
Now, I admire the fact that Kerry enlisted in the Naval Reserves. And I do credit him for valor that his unit was, apparently, deployed to a combat zone and that he served there.
The dishonor comes in Kerry's continued trashing of fellow veteran George Bush's service in the National Guard. The allegations by his supporters that Bush "didn't serve" because he got a comfy post in the National Guard. It's not true. It's a particularly ugly and dishonorable accusation.
And in making those allegations about George Bush they personally offend me.
What I want to know is why hasn't this pertinent fact been investigated or reported by the mainstream media?
That single detail is the most consequential fact to emerge in the midst of the other allegations: that Kerry didn't earn his medals, that he used his medals to get sent home, that he fabricated his testimony to Congress on atrocities and his trip to Cambodia. His enlistment in the Reserves rather than the active Navy is a matter of public record and is either true or not true. The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth have the record.
Why is this seemingly inconsequential detail important to me?
Because Kerry and his supporters have for a year now been besmirching President Bush's service in the National Guard during the Vietnam era as not being honorable. And every time they ridicule the National Guard they ridicule me. I am a veteran of both the active duty U.S. Air Force (8 years) and of the Illinois National Guard (3 years).
In my particular case I was never deployed during my tenure in the Guard but my unit was repeatedly deployed all over the world shortly after I separated. I was ready to deploy and I consider my service to be honorable. I take it as a deeply personal affront every time Kerry or his surrogates imply or directly state that service in the National Guard is less than honorable.
Kerry and his true believers have been drawing direct contrasts to his service and Bush's. They say directly that Bush, a son of privelege, "hid out" in the National Guard to avoid service. By contrast Kerry, a son of privelege, said "Send Me" and enlisted active duty to go to war.
Nice story. But, like the other issues related to his service, the Swifties who served with him have exposed it as a lie. Kerry did not enlist in the Navy knowing that he would be sent. He enlisted in the Naval Reserves not knowing.
To me the National Guard and the Naval Reserves have exactly the same standing. They are both honorable service to our country. And everyone who enlists in the National Guard or in the Naval Reserves know at least two things:
1. You may get deployed to a hostile combat zone at any time
2. You have no control over that decision. You may go. You may not go. It depends on circumstances and on the decisions of politicians and commanders. It doesn't reflect dishonor if you don't get deployed. It doesn't particularly reflect valor if you do get deployed. It's what you signed up for.
Now, I admire the fact that Kerry enlisted in the Naval Reserves. And I do credit him for valor that his unit was, apparently, deployed to a combat zone and that he served there.
The dishonor comes in Kerry's continued trashing of fellow veteran George Bush's service in the National Guard. The allegations by his supporters that Bush "didn't serve" because he got a comfy post in the National Guard. It's not true. It's a particularly ugly and dishonorable accusation.
And in making those allegations about George Bush they personally offend me.
What I want to know is why hasn't this pertinent fact been investigated or reported by the mainstream media?
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Watch the Media Discount Terrorism
The breaking news tonight has 2 commercial aircraft crashing simultaneously in Russia. Late updates indicate that the hijacking signal was triggered in one of the planes.
Now, unless you're a liberal in America your first suspicion should be of terrorism as the cause. Of course there is a "civil war" going on in Chechnya that is a likely source. However, I've already made the connections on this blog of Al Qaida operating in Chechnya in their quest to export Jihad. The second section of the "9/11 Commission Report" confirms that Al Qaida connection and operation in Chechnya.
However, expect the liberals including the mainstream media to immediately start discounting any Al Qaida involvement. I'll give them 8 hours from now and I should start hearing stories about the "separatists" in Chechnya that downplay Al Qaida.
Why? Several reasons. First and foremost is that liberals really didn't learn the lessons of 9/11 and really don't believe there is a terrorist threat to worry about. Oh, they give lip service to it. But they don't really believe it. They don't believe that Al Qaida is operating in Western countries. Surely not in "enlightened" countries like Russia that opposed our liberation of Iraq.
Also because it does not help them in their quest to unseat a wartime President who they've been accusing for a year now about lying about Al Qaida's operations outside of Afghanistan.
This is not a difficult prediction, by the way. Unfortunately it's way too easy.
Now, unless you're a liberal in America your first suspicion should be of terrorism as the cause. Of course there is a "civil war" going on in Chechnya that is a likely source. However, I've already made the connections on this blog of Al Qaida operating in Chechnya in their quest to export Jihad. The second section of the "9/11 Commission Report" confirms that Al Qaida connection and operation in Chechnya.
However, expect the liberals including the mainstream media to immediately start discounting any Al Qaida involvement. I'll give them 8 hours from now and I should start hearing stories about the "separatists" in Chechnya that downplay Al Qaida.
Why? Several reasons. First and foremost is that liberals really didn't learn the lessons of 9/11 and really don't believe there is a terrorist threat to worry about. Oh, they give lip service to it. But they don't really believe it. They don't believe that Al Qaida is operating in Western countries. Surely not in "enlightened" countries like Russia that opposed our liberation of Iraq.
Also because it does not help them in their quest to unseat a wartime President who they've been accusing for a year now about lying about Al Qaida's operations outside of Afghanistan.
This is not a difficult prediction, by the way. Unfortunately it's way too easy.
Monday, August 23, 2004
Reaping the Empty Seats at the Olympics
I've been enjoying the Olympics on TV this week. I challenged my kids to watch the games instead of playing Game Cube or watching cartoons. It's working somewhat, and I try to watch with them. They seem to like swimming events the best.
It's fascinating to watch. The competition. The medals. The human drama. The empty seats.
What's up with the empty seats. It was hard not to notice in the first few days of the games that venues were half filled at best. Why? I've thought about it and have two thoughts as to why the empty seats.
The simplest answer is poor planning. People weren't sure even right up to opening day that the facilities would be done and that there even would be an Olympics. The Greeks brought this on themselves by leaving so much uncertainty if the stadium would be built on time. Not good when you're trying to convince people to fly across the pond in droves and pony up for expensive tickets to these venues. Is the concrete even dry yet?
The other reason was the fear of terrorist attacks, which was not sufficiently calmed by the Greeks. Really, do you trust Europeans with your security?
It's fascinating to watch. The competition. The medals. The human drama. The empty seats.
What's up with the empty seats. It was hard not to notice in the first few days of the games that venues were half filled at best. Why? I've thought about it and have two thoughts as to why the empty seats.
The simplest answer is poor planning. People weren't sure even right up to opening day that the facilities would be done and that there even would be an Olympics. The Greeks brought this on themselves by leaving so much uncertainty if the stadium would be built on time. Not good when you're trying to convince people to fly across the pond in droves and pony up for expensive tickets to these venues. Is the concrete even dry yet?
The other reason was the fear of terrorist attacks, which was not sufficiently calmed by the Greeks. Really, do you trust Europeans with your security?
Sunday, August 22, 2004
Ad Wars
Random thoughts on the "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" ads on John Kerry.
- I'm amazed at the harsh media reaction to these ads. The mainstream media is in full attack mode on the veterans themselves.
- All of the furious reaction and activity in the media apparently doesn't include one thing: actually reading the book that the veterans have released to document their claims. According to the few who have, "Unfit for Command" is extensively documented and makes the case strongly. It was obvious in the Chris Matthews'interview / haranguing of Michelle Malkin that he not only had not read the book but that he wasn't even cognizant of the exact nature of the claims the veterans have made. He came unhinged and put words in her mouth that she didn't say and the book doesn't say.
For example, Malkin mention the allegation that at least one of Kerry's wounds was self-inflicted and therefore would not have been a legitimate basis for a purple heart. She didn't make that up. I've seen the veterans being interviewed making that claim. The claim that Kerry screwed up and misfired a grenade launcher and was hit from shrapnel that ricoheted from a nearby rock. No enemy fire is the point of the claim. And the on scene commander refused to sign a citation for that reason. But Matthews clearly didn't know the facts of the allegation. He seized on her words "self-inflicted" and turned it into "shot himself". He said "no one has made the claim that he shot himself". Chris, read the book before you interview people. Earn your salary.
- The new ad should be very effective. It shows ex-POW's stating that Kerry betrayed his country when he came back and alleged war crimes by his fellow soldiers. It's already been reported that Kerry's words were played over and over during torture in the Hanoi Hilton to get prisoners to sign confessions. It's an abomination. He's worse than Jane Fonda. There is no way he's fit to be the Commander in Chief. That's the message of the ad and it's true. Hopefully it gets played.
- The Democrats are countering with an ad by retired Air Force General Merril McPeak. McPeak claims that he supported Bush in 2000 but will now support Kerry because he has a "plan". Folks, let me tell you something. I served in the active duty Air Force when McPeak was the Air Force Chief of Staff during the first gulf war. I didn't have any respect for him then. He was a worthless Chief of Staff who regularly pissed off the enlisted force. He was an elitist snob jerk. No one even remembers his contribution during Desert Storm. The only thing he was known for was redesigning the dress blue uniform into the awful "Airline pilot's" uniform that it is today. It's the plainest service uniform and everyone hated the switch. Please, do not let this guy sway your opinion.
- I'm amazed at the harsh media reaction to these ads. The mainstream media is in full attack mode on the veterans themselves.
- All of the furious reaction and activity in the media apparently doesn't include one thing: actually reading the book that the veterans have released to document their claims. According to the few who have, "Unfit for Command" is extensively documented and makes the case strongly. It was obvious in the Chris Matthews'interview / haranguing of Michelle Malkin that he not only had not read the book but that he wasn't even cognizant of the exact nature of the claims the veterans have made. He came unhinged and put words in her mouth that she didn't say and the book doesn't say.
For example, Malkin mention the allegation that at least one of Kerry's wounds was self-inflicted and therefore would not have been a legitimate basis for a purple heart. She didn't make that up. I've seen the veterans being interviewed making that claim. The claim that Kerry screwed up and misfired a grenade launcher and was hit from shrapnel that ricoheted from a nearby rock. No enemy fire is the point of the claim. And the on scene commander refused to sign a citation for that reason. But Matthews clearly didn't know the facts of the allegation. He seized on her words "self-inflicted" and turned it into "shot himself". He said "no one has made the claim that he shot himself". Chris, read the book before you interview people. Earn your salary.
- The new ad should be very effective. It shows ex-POW's stating that Kerry betrayed his country when he came back and alleged war crimes by his fellow soldiers. It's already been reported that Kerry's words were played over and over during torture in the Hanoi Hilton to get prisoners to sign confessions. It's an abomination. He's worse than Jane Fonda. There is no way he's fit to be the Commander in Chief. That's the message of the ad and it's true. Hopefully it gets played.
- The Democrats are countering with an ad by retired Air Force General Merril McPeak. McPeak claims that he supported Bush in 2000 but will now support Kerry because he has a "plan". Folks, let me tell you something. I served in the active duty Air Force when McPeak was the Air Force Chief of Staff during the first gulf war. I didn't have any respect for him then. He was a worthless Chief of Staff who regularly pissed off the enlisted force. He was an elitist snob jerk. No one even remembers his contribution during Desert Storm. The only thing he was known for was redesigning the dress blue uniform into the awful "Airline pilot's" uniform that it is today. It's the plainest service uniform and everyone hated the switch. Please, do not let this guy sway your opinion.
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Summer Reading
I'm reading "The 9/11 Commission Report" for fun summer reading, in my spare time.
I must say that the chapters that I've read so far are riveting. Totally fascinating.
My expectation going into reading it was not high. I expected a partisan slam on President Bush. I was wrong. What I've read so far is a straight-down-the-middle compelling narrative of the facts of 9/11. I have learned more in the reading of the first chapter on the events of that day than I had previously learned in 3 years of paying close attention to the news. I was very surprised. And pleasantly surprised.
The second section, on the rise of Bin Laden's organization Al Qaeda, is riveting as well.
I'm only through the first two sections and I haven't gotten to the recommendations section, but I already have a recommendation of my own. It would be worth your time to read this report before the election. And it should be required reading on college campuses.
Stay tuned.
I must say that the chapters that I've read so far are riveting. Totally fascinating.
My expectation going into reading it was not high. I expected a partisan slam on President Bush. I was wrong. What I've read so far is a straight-down-the-middle compelling narrative of the facts of 9/11. I have learned more in the reading of the first chapter on the events of that day than I had previously learned in 3 years of paying close attention to the news. I was very surprised. And pleasantly surprised.
The second section, on the rise of Bin Laden's organization Al Qaeda, is riveting as well.
I'm only through the first two sections and I haven't gotten to the recommendations section, but I already have a recommendation of my own. It would be worth your time to read this report before the election. And it should be required reading on college campuses.
Stay tuned.
Sunday, August 08, 2004
Truth will tell, in time
The Democrats are staking their whole run for the presidency this year on the news being bad. For them to unseat a sitting wartime president they need things to go badly. They need the economy to go badly. They need the war to go badly.
I understand you want your guy to win. Hey, it's an election and you're the party out of power. Significantly out of power. The presidency, the House of Representatives, and the Senate are not in your control. Only the courts and the press. You're miffed and you want power back. I understand that.
I understand that you're still steamed about the election of 2000. Your guy got the most votes and you lost the presidency because of the arcane Electoral College. I get that. You feel robbed. I understand. You even want to grab on to every "Bush Stole the Election" story you can even when the facts don't back you up. You want to yell "Count every vote!" even when all the votes were counted by a media consortium after the election and found that Bush still won. Doesn't matter, you want to be mad. You want to yell "Bush disenfranchised the blacks!" even though civil rights commissions investigated after the election and found that wasn't true. Doesn't matter. You want to be mad. You want the base to be mad. Fine. Hold on to that illogical bitterness if it gets you through the election.
I understand that you want to read every news story in absolutely the most negative light about the Bush administration.
But rooting against the war is going too far. And playing up every "Bush Lied, Kids died" conspiracy is hurting our image abroad when our troops are in harm's way.
Democrats - I implore you. You need to rethink your embrace of every outlandish Michael Moore or Howard Dean charge just because it feeds your hatred of George W. Bush. It really is undermining the war effort. And time eventually exposes the falsity of your claims.
Here are the latest two examples:
1. Bush elevated the security threat level just for political gain last week.
Tom Ridge raised the security threat level in New York. When pressed by the media and partisan Democrats he said that some of the intelligence information was old. The Democrat spin machine suddenly started pumping out the story that the threat wasn't real and that Bush did it for political gain in an election year.
However, the story is slowly coming out. Yes there was old intelligence. But there was also a new arrest of a high level Al Qaida operative in Pakistan with information on his computer that updated the old intelligence. It was a real threat based on a new arrest. Tom Ridge and his team were limited in what the could say without revealing intelligence sources. Democrats played on that and made wild accusations knowing that Ridge would be limited in defending his actions in order to keep intelligence safeguarded. The Democrats actions are despicable and indefensible in wartime.
2. Democrats continue to allege that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaida and therefore the invasion of Iraq could not be placed in the scope of the War on Terror.
The danger for the Democrats here is that as more information is made public from Iraq it will support the connection.
Here's an important story in the news this week related to Iraqi funding of Al Qaida using the totally corrupted Food for Oil program. http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/8/125457.shtml
Bottom line: Democrats - you've got to rethink embracing every outrageous charge against the Bush administration in wartime just to get your guy elected. It's harmful to the country. Stop it.
I understand you want your guy to win. Hey, it's an election and you're the party out of power. Significantly out of power. The presidency, the House of Representatives, and the Senate are not in your control. Only the courts and the press. You're miffed and you want power back. I understand that.
I understand that you're still steamed about the election of 2000. Your guy got the most votes and you lost the presidency because of the arcane Electoral College. I get that. You feel robbed. I understand. You even want to grab on to every "Bush Stole the Election" story you can even when the facts don't back you up. You want to yell "Count every vote!" even when all the votes were counted by a media consortium after the election and found that Bush still won. Doesn't matter, you want to be mad. You want to yell "Bush disenfranchised the blacks!" even though civil rights commissions investigated after the election and found that wasn't true. Doesn't matter. You want to be mad. You want the base to be mad. Fine. Hold on to that illogical bitterness if it gets you through the election.
I understand that you want to read every news story in absolutely the most negative light about the Bush administration.
But rooting against the war is going too far. And playing up every "Bush Lied, Kids died" conspiracy is hurting our image abroad when our troops are in harm's way.
Democrats - I implore you. You need to rethink your embrace of every outlandish Michael Moore or Howard Dean charge just because it feeds your hatred of George W. Bush. It really is undermining the war effort. And time eventually exposes the falsity of your claims.
Here are the latest two examples:
1. Bush elevated the security threat level just for political gain last week.
Tom Ridge raised the security threat level in New York. When pressed by the media and partisan Democrats he said that some of the intelligence information was old. The Democrat spin machine suddenly started pumping out the story that the threat wasn't real and that Bush did it for political gain in an election year.
However, the story is slowly coming out. Yes there was old intelligence. But there was also a new arrest of a high level Al Qaida operative in Pakistan with information on his computer that updated the old intelligence. It was a real threat based on a new arrest. Tom Ridge and his team were limited in what the could say without revealing intelligence sources. Democrats played on that and made wild accusations knowing that Ridge would be limited in defending his actions in order to keep intelligence safeguarded. The Democrats actions are despicable and indefensible in wartime.
2. Democrats continue to allege that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaida and therefore the invasion of Iraq could not be placed in the scope of the War on Terror.
The danger for the Democrats here is that as more information is made public from Iraq it will support the connection.
Here's an important story in the news this week related to Iraqi funding of Al Qaida using the totally corrupted Food for Oil program. http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/8/8/125457.shtml
Bottom line: Democrats - you've got to rethink embracing every outrageous charge against the Bush administration in wartime just to get your guy elected. It's harmful to the country. Stop it.
A Party in Freefall
The Illinois Republican Party continues it's free fall into irrelevance this month with the selection by the party of the candidate for the U.S. Senate from Illinois - Alan Keyes.
The Repubulican Party Central Committee in Illinois is on a record run of continuous disasasters, leading the party to record electoral pariah status. Starting with nominating a crook like George Ryan to be our candidate for Govenor. Next they nominated Jim Ryan to succeeed George. Jim Ryan sleep-walked his way through campaigning on the slogan, apparently, of "I'm not George, really" and went down to a resounding defeat. Now we have a Democrat as Govenor. Finally, we have the meltdown of Jack Ryan as our Senate candidate and we face the turnover of the Senate seat from Republican to Democrat control. Nice work Central Committee. Do you have more Ryans to run for office so that every state position could be held by Democrats?
This Senate election affects me for two reasons:
1. I live in Illinois and will be represented by this Senator.
2. I live in the United States and will be affected by whether or not the Senate is Republican or Democratic controlled. With the Senate tied the loss of one seat could tip the balance.
So after the meltdown of Jack Ryan our Central Committee has selected Alan Keyes to run with approximately 2 months to go in a race against Barack Obama. Here's the pros and cons of this selection of Alan Keyes:
Pros:
- he's a well qualified candidate with public service on his resume
- he's brilliant
- he's well spoken and a fierce debater
- he's popular with Republicans and has a built in constituency
- he can raise money on short notice
- he has a shot at winning even with the debacle of our selection process
Cons:
- he's never been elected to office
- he's not from Illinois. He criticized Hillary Clinton for running for Senate from a state she's not from and now he's doing the same thing. Intellectual honesty compels me to mark this as a con. I too criticized Hillary and I can't just excuse it from Keyes because he's my guy.
Really it's all too much to put up with. In the whole state of Illinois can't we find one decent candidate who's actually from our state and who's not named Ryan?
All that being said, Keyes is our man and I will vote for him. Let's Vote!
The Repubulican Party Central Committee in Illinois is on a record run of continuous disasasters, leading the party to record electoral pariah status. Starting with nominating a crook like George Ryan to be our candidate for Govenor. Next they nominated Jim Ryan to succeeed George. Jim Ryan sleep-walked his way through campaigning on the slogan, apparently, of "I'm not George, really" and went down to a resounding defeat. Now we have a Democrat as Govenor. Finally, we have the meltdown of Jack Ryan as our Senate candidate and we face the turnover of the Senate seat from Republican to Democrat control. Nice work Central Committee. Do you have more Ryans to run for office so that every state position could be held by Democrats?
This Senate election affects me for two reasons:
1. I live in Illinois and will be represented by this Senator.
2. I live in the United States and will be affected by whether or not the Senate is Republican or Democratic controlled. With the Senate tied the loss of one seat could tip the balance.
So after the meltdown of Jack Ryan our Central Committee has selected Alan Keyes to run with approximately 2 months to go in a race against Barack Obama. Here's the pros and cons of this selection of Alan Keyes:
Pros:
- he's a well qualified candidate with public service on his resume
- he's brilliant
- he's well spoken and a fierce debater
- he's popular with Republicans and has a built in constituency
- he can raise money on short notice
- he has a shot at winning even with the debacle of our selection process
Cons:
- he's never been elected to office
- he's not from Illinois. He criticized Hillary Clinton for running for Senate from a state she's not from and now he's doing the same thing. Intellectual honesty compels me to mark this as a con. I too criticized Hillary and I can't just excuse it from Keyes because he's my guy.
Really it's all too much to put up with. In the whole state of Illinois can't we find one decent candidate who's actually from our state and who's not named Ryan?
All that being said, Keyes is our man and I will vote for him. Let's Vote!
Monday, August 02, 2004
Liberals Still Don't Get It - It's a War!
There's a pivotal scene in the movie "The American President" starring Michael Douglas that defines liberal misunderstanding of war for me and reminds me of John Kerry.
In this scene in an otherwise fine movie Douglas, as President of the United States, is chairing a meeting of his top advisors. America has been attacked. The President approves a plan to strike the Intelligence Headquarters of the enemy where they planned the attack on us. But he fine tunes our attack in response to make sure he hits the building late at night when only a skeleton crew will be on duty to minimize the casualties. His advisors swoon. Oh, he's so caring! We must issue a press release about his courage. The President demurs: this is the most difficult decision I've made. Somewhere tonight a janitor's life is going to end without him knowing why and I hate that I had to do it.
Liberals apparently love this scene as an example of courageous leadership. He had to strike, but he minimized the casualties. In fact, it's based on a real life example. After uncovering an Iraqi plot to kill ex-President Bush, Bill Clinton ordered a strike on the Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters at midnight for the same reason. Oh, he's so courageous and caring!
I personally hate this scene and what it represents. I always want to throw a shoe at the screen and yell "No, that's not the right response!" What did the janitor do to us? How effective was it to kill him and to blow up an empty building? Do you think that would deter a future attack? It's ridiculous. It's all style over substance. A worthless "message". The right thing to do, if you're going to strike the Headquarters where the attack on us was planned, is to hit it in the daytime and take out the actual leaders who did the planning. That's effective.
But liberals, who hate the use of force even when it's justified and necessary, mistake what fake President Douglas and real President Clinton did for courage.
John Kerry reminds me of that misunderstanding of courage and of the use of force to defend us.
I'm not going to take much space to comment on John Kerry's speech to accept his nomination and close out the Democratic National Convention. I'll just say this. It was a complete mess. Poorly delivered. An incoherent theme. No vision. All slogans. This was his first big test as a candidate and he failed it. He had a month to write the speech and this awful thing was what he delivered.
However, one line of the speech that deserves commenting on came in a section where Kerry was trying to make the case that he could be trusted with homeland security. He said essentially this:
Really? You're going to wait for an attack? Senator Kerry, you still don't get it.
The most drastic thing that George W. Bush changed about American policy after 9/11 was that we were no longer going to wait for an attack on America and then treat it like a crime. We were going to take the fight to those who are planning to harm us and treat it like a war. Stop them before they attack us. That was a monumental shift in policy and it came through leadership.
Kerry has not caught up to the change. He'll wait for an attack. Then he'll send the cops over to take fingerprints for a trial. Maybe send a missle or two into an empty tent. If the U.N. and France approve of it, of course.
There is a clear choice in this election:
The future - George W. Bush - who lead a paradigm shift and is taking the fight to the terrorists.
The past - John Kerry - who will wait for an attack.
You choose.
In this scene in an otherwise fine movie Douglas, as President of the United States, is chairing a meeting of his top advisors. America has been attacked. The President approves a plan to strike the Intelligence Headquarters of the enemy where they planned the attack on us. But he fine tunes our attack in response to make sure he hits the building late at night when only a skeleton crew will be on duty to minimize the casualties. His advisors swoon. Oh, he's so caring! We must issue a press release about his courage. The President demurs: this is the most difficult decision I've made. Somewhere tonight a janitor's life is going to end without him knowing why and I hate that I had to do it.
Liberals apparently love this scene as an example of courageous leadership. He had to strike, but he minimized the casualties. In fact, it's based on a real life example. After uncovering an Iraqi plot to kill ex-President Bush, Bill Clinton ordered a strike on the Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters at midnight for the same reason. Oh, he's so courageous and caring!
I personally hate this scene and what it represents. I always want to throw a shoe at the screen and yell "No, that's not the right response!" What did the janitor do to us? How effective was it to kill him and to blow up an empty building? Do you think that would deter a future attack? It's ridiculous. It's all style over substance. A worthless "message". The right thing to do, if you're going to strike the Headquarters where the attack on us was planned, is to hit it in the daytime and take out the actual leaders who did the planning. That's effective.
But liberals, who hate the use of force even when it's justified and necessary, mistake what fake President Douglas and real President Clinton did for courage.
John Kerry reminds me of that misunderstanding of courage and of the use of force to defend us.
I'm not going to take much space to comment on John Kerry's speech to accept his nomination and close out the Democratic National Convention. I'll just say this. It was a complete mess. Poorly delivered. An incoherent theme. No vision. All slogans. This was his first big test as a candidate and he failed it. He had a month to write the speech and this awful thing was what he delivered.
However, one line of the speech that deserves commenting on came in a section where Kerry was trying to make the case that he could be trusted with homeland security. He said essentially this:
...any attack on America will be met with a swift and certain
response.
Really? You're going to wait for an attack? Senator Kerry, you still don't get it.
The most drastic thing that George W. Bush changed about American policy after 9/11 was that we were no longer going to wait for an attack on America and then treat it like a crime. We were going to take the fight to those who are planning to harm us and treat it like a war. Stop them before they attack us. That was a monumental shift in policy and it came through leadership.
Kerry has not caught up to the change. He'll wait for an attack. Then he'll send the cops over to take fingerprints for a trial. Maybe send a missle or two into an empty tent. If the U.N. and France approve of it, of course.
There is a clear choice in this election:
The future - George W. Bush - who lead a paradigm shift and is taking the fight to the terrorists.
The past - John Kerry - who will wait for an attack.
You choose.
The Democratic Echo Chamber
Here’s the one thing I took away from watching the 4 day coverage of the Democratic National Convention:
Democrats have been talking to each other in campaign mode for a year now and they think that their I-hate-Bush talking points are now universally accepted truths all across America. So now they just shorthand it to each other in the Echo Chamber.
Here’s what I imagine a conversation between 3 delegates at the convention to be like:
Democrats have been talking to each other in campaign mode for a year now and they think that their I-hate-Bush talking points are now universally accepted truths all across America. So now they just shorthand it to each other in the Echo Chamber.
Here’s what I imagine a conversation between 3 delegates at the convention to be like:
Left - winger #1: Count Every Vote! Can you believe the security here?
Lefty #2: Bush is a divider, not a uniter! I like your hat.
Lefty #1: Restore Credibility! I got some new Edwards buttons. He's got such great hair!
Lefty #2: Tax cuts for the rich!
Lefty # 1: Internationalize the war! No WMD’s!
Lefty #2: Lost 1 million jobs! Haliburton!
Lefty #1: Hey there’s sister Lefty. Is she done with her abortion rights, stop outsourcing, start gay marriage, stop-the-war committee meetings?
Lefty #3: Hi Ladies. I hate Bush. Bush lied, kids died. No War for oil. Florida. Deserter. Election Stealer. Disenfranchiser. And he’s stupid, too!
Lefty #1: Shhhhhh! Didn’t you get the memo? We’re not supposed to say any of that out loud here! We can’t tip off the swing voters.
Lefty #3: Oops. Sorry. But hey, no one’s looking. Let’s all whisper it together.
Lefty chorus, whispering: I Hate Bush!
Lefy #1: Wow, I feel better. I’ve been keeping that bottled up all week.
Hey is anyone hungry? We can limo over to the Ritz Carlton for our party with the Clintons. Time Warner is buying the Dom Perignon. We can talk about the poor.
Lefty chorus: Let’s go. Kerry’s a war hero!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)