Usama bin Laden, our mortal enemy in the War on Terror, released an election eve video through al Jazeera TV in the Mideast. It was either an attempt to affect our election or a signal to some cell to launch an attack.
As for the tone of the tape - unlike previous tapes where he was a fire-breather who regularly promised our destruction, he seems to have turned into somewhat of a girlie-man terrorist who says it's in our hands not to be attacked again if we leave them alone. I'm guessing that killing or capturing 75% of his killer buddies, under the capable leadership of George W. Bush, has neutered him a great deal.
Nonetheless, he made a couple of interesting points:
- Just like John Kerry, bin Laden argues that President Bush has "lied" to the American people since 9/11.
- Just like Michael Moore, bin Laden argues that President Bush was derelict for sitting in a classroom reading to students during the 9/11 attack.
Gee, when you there isn't a dime's width of difference between our mortal enemy and one of our political parties - there's a problem there.
The one remaining question is: Where is Usama? Maybe he's in Florida hiding as a registered Democrat.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Kerry or the Terrorists: Who's Right?
John Kerry has been on the campaign trail for months now alledging that George Bush was not aggressive enough on terrorism. That he took his eye off of al Qaida and let them off the hook.
Do the terrorists see it that way? Do they think Bush was too easy on al Qaida?
Not according to a tape that is, according to the Drudge Report, in the hands of ABC News and the CIA. The tape is from a member of al Qaida and is a warning about the next terrorist attack. An attack bigger than 9/11. An attack where the "streets will run with blood" and " ' America will mourn in silence' because they will be unable to count the number of the dead".
And why do they want to attack us again?
Apparently al Qaida would have preferred the appeasement policy of John Kerry and his elite buddies at the United Nations. Another good reason to vote for George W. Bush.
Do the terrorists see it that way? Do they think Bush was too easy on al Qaida?
Not according to a tape that is, according to the Drudge Report, in the hands of ABC News and the CIA. The tape is from a member of al Qaida and is a warning about the next terrorist attack. An attack bigger than 9/11. An attack where the "streets will run with blood" and " ' America will mourn in silence' because they will be unable to count the number of the dead".
And why do they want to attack us again?
"Further claims on the video: America has brought this on itself for electing
George Bush who has made war on Islam by destroying the Taliban and making war
on Al Qaeda."
Apparently al Qaida would have preferred the appeasement policy of John Kerry and his elite buddies at the United Nations. Another good reason to vote for George W. Bush.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
Why I support President Bush's Re-election
I was re-reading some of my recent posts this week and realized something. They're mostly negative. I've allowed the intensity and negativity of the campaign to dominate my writing here. But a funny thing has happened. Since I've already voted, absentee, I've found that I've almost completely tuned out of the election. I'm on an even keel. I'm not even that interested in weighing in on why the other guy is wrong.
So, I decided to pause and post something positive for a change. Let me list why I support the re-election bid of President George W. Bush.
1. I like his character. He's a staightforward man. He's a principaled man. He's a compassionate man. He's a man of faith. Despite all of his critics on that front, that's what I take from what I've read and heard and observed of him. He's a man of solid and unshakeable principles who is not particularly concerned about his legacy or about being liked.
2. I like his cabinet: - despite the overwhelming tide of hatred from the left mischaracterizing them. I think that Bush's cabinet is comprised of solid, experienced, and talented patriots who take the job of serving the President of the United States very seriously. I like them all: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, etc.
Rumsfeld - who reacted to a military challenge in the aftermath of the worst attack on our nation ever and is getting the job done with spectacular military wins in Afghanistan and Iraq - reshaping our military from cold war obsolesence in the process.
Ashcroft - who undertook the serious business of reshaping the instruments of justice to bring them to bear on the most serious internal threats that we've faced.
It's clear to me that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Aschroft - to mention only a few- are men of clear and unwavering convictions and that that clarity upsets a lot of people. So be it. I'm with them.
3. I like his policies: He learned the lesson of 9/11 - that we can no longer be safe with a policy of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue and tracking down the individual terrorists to "bring them to justice", but that it's a war and the main foe is the state sponsor of terrorism that acts as a force multiplier by supplying financing, training bases, etc. He learned this lesson and he will not waver from it even under withering fire from the appeasement crowd in the media.
I like that he applied tax cuts accross the board and did not pander for votes.
Quote from this week on the stump: "The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. If you paid taxes, you should get some relief"
Dead on, constitutionally correct.
I like his stand to do what is right, not what is politically popular with the elites and the media of this country. Taking down the Taliban was the right thing to do. Deposing Sadaam was the right thing to do. (And I like that he spent the political capital that came with a 90% approval rating to do the right- but difficult - thing in Iraq.) I like that he stood up to the delusional United Nations and told them that they were on the verge of irrelevancy after 17 failed resolutions in 12 years in Iraq. Bush does what's right, not what's politically correct.
4. I like his leadership style: He's an executive. He sets the course for his team and delegates to them the responsibility to get results. He's not a micro-manager. He's not a legislator. He's an executive. And that is the job description of the President.
5. I like his wife: a very classy First Lady.
6. Finally, I like his optimism: It comes through in all of his speeches. While his opponent drones on with a litany of failures, misjudgements, and "lies" the President remains steadfast in demonstrating leadership through optimism.
While his critics have carped at him relentlessy through this term, he has perservered. At each step, his critics have been wrong. They've said:
- you can't go into Afghanistan and win. Look at what happened to Russia
- Iraq will be a quagmire with tens of thousands of casualties and will take months if not years to win
- you can have democratic elections in Afghanistan
and now, the chorus is - you can't have elections in Iraq. Oh yes we can, if Bush is still President.
I did not vote against someone. I did not vote for the "lesser of two evils". I voted, proudly, for someone who I admire, trust, and respect for President of the United States of America.
So, I decided to pause and post something positive for a change. Let me list why I support the re-election bid of President George W. Bush.
1. I like his character. He's a staightforward man. He's a principaled man. He's a compassionate man. He's a man of faith. Despite all of his critics on that front, that's what I take from what I've read and heard and observed of him. He's a man of solid and unshakeable principles who is not particularly concerned about his legacy or about being liked.
2. I like his cabinet: - despite the overwhelming tide of hatred from the left mischaracterizing them. I think that Bush's cabinet is comprised of solid, experienced, and talented patriots who take the job of serving the President of the United States very seriously. I like them all: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, etc.
Rumsfeld - who reacted to a military challenge in the aftermath of the worst attack on our nation ever and is getting the job done with spectacular military wins in Afghanistan and Iraq - reshaping our military from cold war obsolesence in the process.
Ashcroft - who undertook the serious business of reshaping the instruments of justice to bring them to bear on the most serious internal threats that we've faced.
It's clear to me that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Aschroft - to mention only a few- are men of clear and unwavering convictions and that that clarity upsets a lot of people. So be it. I'm with them.
3. I like his policies: He learned the lesson of 9/11 - that we can no longer be safe with a policy of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue and tracking down the individual terrorists to "bring them to justice", but that it's a war and the main foe is the state sponsor of terrorism that acts as a force multiplier by supplying financing, training bases, etc. He learned this lesson and he will not waver from it even under withering fire from the appeasement crowd in the media.
I like that he applied tax cuts accross the board and did not pander for votes.
Quote from this week on the stump: "The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. If you paid taxes, you should get some relief"
Dead on, constitutionally correct.
I like his stand to do what is right, not what is politically popular with the elites and the media of this country. Taking down the Taliban was the right thing to do. Deposing Sadaam was the right thing to do. (And I like that he spent the political capital that came with a 90% approval rating to do the right- but difficult - thing in Iraq.) I like that he stood up to the delusional United Nations and told them that they were on the verge of irrelevancy after 17 failed resolutions in 12 years in Iraq. Bush does what's right, not what's politically correct.
4. I like his leadership style: He's an executive. He sets the course for his team and delegates to them the responsibility to get results. He's not a micro-manager. He's not a legislator. He's an executive. And that is the job description of the President.
5. I like his wife: a very classy First Lady.
6. Finally, I like his optimism: It comes through in all of his speeches. While his opponent drones on with a litany of failures, misjudgements, and "lies" the President remains steadfast in demonstrating leadership through optimism.
While his critics have carped at him relentlessy through this term, he has perservered. At each step, his critics have been wrong. They've said:
- you can't go into Afghanistan and win. Look at what happened to Russia
- Iraq will be a quagmire with tens of thousands of casualties and will take months if not years to win
- you can have democratic elections in Afghanistan
and now, the chorus is - you can't have elections in Iraq. Oh yes we can, if Bush is still President.
I did not vote against someone. I did not vote for the "lesser of two evils". I voted, proudly, for someone who I admire, trust, and respect for President of the United States of America.
Friday, October 22, 2004
Jimmy Carter: Devaluing the Ex-Presidency
Jimmy Carter has apparently lost his ever-loving mind. And he's trashing the reputation of ex-Presidents as senior statemen who's opinion should be valued and sought in weighty matters of state.
Jimmy Carter has been in the news for three things of late:
1. Certifying the election in Venezuala as an election monitor. This was an election so fraudulent, apparently, that event the European Union will not recognize the results. A thoroughly corrupt coronation of a thug for president. And, it can surely be said, Jimmy Carter never met a thug dictator that he did not like - so he certified the election.
2. Answering the question of what his two favorite movies of all time are: Casablanca and Farenheit 9/11. Puh - leeeeeeze. This answer alone should disqualify him from being sought for an opinion ever again.
3. Opining this week in the press that the American Revolutionary War was an uneccessary war. That if England had only respected our rights a little more the war could have been avoided and eventually America would have gained our freedom without bloodshed.
Why does anyone still seek Jimmy Carter's opinion? Reporters: please let him stay with the noble causes he's good with: teaching Sunday School and building houses for the poor. Those are worthy endeavors. Meddling in foreign affairs? That, ehhhhhh - he's not so good with.
Jimmy Carter has been in the news for three things of late:
1. Certifying the election in Venezuala as an election monitor. This was an election so fraudulent, apparently, that event the European Union will not recognize the results. A thoroughly corrupt coronation of a thug for president. And, it can surely be said, Jimmy Carter never met a thug dictator that he did not like - so he certified the election.
2. Answering the question of what his two favorite movies of all time are: Casablanca and Farenheit 9/11. Puh - leeeeeeze. This answer alone should disqualify him from being sought for an opinion ever again.
3. Opining this week in the press that the American Revolutionary War was an uneccessary war. That if England had only respected our rights a little more the war could have been avoided and eventually America would have gained our freedom without bloodshed.
Why does anyone still seek Jimmy Carter's opinion? Reporters: please let him stay with the noble causes he's good with: teaching Sunday School and building houses for the poor. Those are worthy endeavors. Meddling in foreign affairs? That, ehhhhhh - he's not so good with.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Into the Booth
I voted today! Absentee, because I'll be out of the state on Nov 2.
I guess I'm just a spectator now for the next two weeks. I'll fire up the popcorn and watch from the sidelines.
I guess I'm just a spectator now for the next two weeks. I'll fire up the popcorn and watch from the sidelines.
Halloween comes early for the Kerry campaign
We're two weeks from an election, and 13 days from Halloween, and the Kerry campaign for President is trotting out the usual skeletons and boogeymen to scare voters into voting for them:
- scaring seniors that George W. Bush is going to take their social security away from them through a "January surprise" to privatize social security. Nonsense. Bush's plan for personal retirement accounts is sound and has been known since the 2000 election.
- scaring young people that the Bush administration is going to start a draft after the election. Nonsense. The only congress critters to propose a draft were Democrats and the bill was soundly defeated in the house 400 to 2 by the Republicans.
Hey - John Kerry. Boo!
- scaring seniors that George W. Bush is going to take their social security away from them through a "January surprise" to privatize social security. Nonsense. Bush's plan for personal retirement accounts is sound and has been known since the 2000 election.
- scaring young people that the Bush administration is going to start a draft after the election. Nonsense. The only congress critters to propose a draft were Democrats and the bill was soundly defeated in the house 400 to 2 by the Republicans.
Hey - John Kerry. Boo!
Saturday, October 16, 2004
The Kerry's Tax Hypocrisy
Really, it's just too much to bear.
The sheer magnitude of the hypocrisy of Sen. John Kerry, who certainly did marry up to a billionaire heiress, and the heiress herself Teresa Heinz Kerry is truly stunning.
After a year and a half on the campaign trail bashing President Bush for irresponsible tax cuts that only benefit his rich buddies in "the richest one percent of taxpayers", Mrs. Heinz Kerry finally deigns to release her tax records. And what a stunner they are.
It was bad enough when John Kerry released his tax records and revealed that he only paid approximately 12% tax rate compared to the Bush's tax rate of over 20%.
Now, we discover that Teresa, whose net worth of over $1 Billion surely puts her in the richest 1%" bracket, paid much less. According to this excellent report at Newsmax.com, Mrs. Heinz Kerry paid a paltry 1.2% tax rate on her income of approximately $50 Million in 2003.
This one fact should be all you need to know to not vote for John Kerry.
Let me say that again: 1.2% tax rate. In fact, I would be hard pressed to call her a "tax payer" at all at that rate.
That is, if the records are even accurate. Kerry reported income of $5 Million, which under reports her probable annual income of $50M based on a reasonable return against her net worth. Again, from Newsmax:
What happened to all of those speeches about the rich paying their fair share?
Obviously, she has the best lawyers and accountants that money can buy to shelter her income. Maybe John Kerry could propose a government entitlement program to help the poor and downtrodden by providing them with Teresa's tax lawyers to help them avoid paying taxes. But then again, how would they fund it if everyone avoided taxes like Teresa does?
The Kerrys. John and Ter-aaaaa-za. Champions of the poor and downtrodden. Working for the little guy. Paying their fair share.
It makes me want to vomit.
The sheer magnitude of the hypocrisy of Sen. John Kerry, who certainly did marry up to a billionaire heiress, and the heiress herself Teresa Heinz Kerry is truly stunning.
After a year and a half on the campaign trail bashing President Bush for irresponsible tax cuts that only benefit his rich buddies in "the richest one percent of taxpayers", Mrs. Heinz Kerry finally deigns to release her tax records. And what a stunner they are.
It was bad enough when John Kerry released his tax records and revealed that he only paid approximately 12% tax rate compared to the Bush's tax rate of over 20%.
Now, we discover that Teresa, whose net worth of over $1 Billion surely puts her in the richest 1%" bracket, paid much less. According to this excellent report at Newsmax.com, Mrs. Heinz Kerry paid a paltry 1.2% tax rate on her income of approximately $50 Million in 2003.
This one fact should be all you need to know to not vote for John Kerry.
Let me say that again: 1.2% tax rate. In fact, I would be hard pressed to call her a "tax payer" at all at that rate.
That is, if the records are even accurate. Kerry reported income of $5 Million, which under reports her probable annual income of $50M based on a reasonable return against her net worth. Again, from Newsmax:
"Financial experts cited by the New York Post on Saturday said that the Kerry family's reported $5 million annual income wouldn't come close to covering their lavish lifestyle, which includes five estates; multiple cars; a $3.5 million Gulfstream V jet complete with plasma TV, gold fixtures and two bathrooms; a yacht worth $750,000 to $1 million and servants in every location."
What happened to all of those speeches about the rich paying their fair share?
Obviously, she has the best lawyers and accountants that money can buy to shelter her income. Maybe John Kerry could propose a government entitlement program to help the poor and downtrodden by providing them with Teresa's tax lawyers to help them avoid paying taxes. But then again, how would they fund it if everyone avoided taxes like Teresa does?
The Kerrys. John and Ter-aaaaa-za. Champions of the poor and downtrodden. Working for the little guy. Paying their fair share.
It makes me want to vomit.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
John Kerry's America
After watching the 3 Presidential debates, and listening to John Kerry's relentless drumbeat of pessimism and negativity, here's what I've learned:
In John Kerry's America:
George Bush has:
- Lied us into the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time - apparently for the wrong reason having to do with making his oil buddies at companies like Halliburton rich while the bodies pile up in Iraq (more in September than there were in August, more in August than there were in July, more in July than there were in June). Or was it to avenge his daddy?
- Squandered our budget surplus to give tax giveaways to all his rich buddies
- Lost all of our good jobs overseas to make greedy companies richer.
- Sold out our government to the wishes of the Saudi Royal Family.
and George Bush wants to:
- Leave all of our children behind.
- Take away your Social Security checks.
- Keep you from having prescription drugs free from the government.
- Stuff his religious, bigoted, scientifically ignorant beliefs down every Embryonic Stem Cell's throat.
- Take a way a women's constitutional right to choose. (Choose what? Oh, sorry, we're not supposed to ask that question)
- Raid your house and toss you in jail for fun under the Patriot Act
While John Kerry would:
- have a good job for everyone. Not as high paying as being a gigolo Senator with a billionaire wife, but you know what he means.
- give everyone all the prescription drugs they want, preferrably from Canada
- Make the French and Germans like us. Oh, and the UN too.
- Hunt and kill the terrorists, but not go over there to do it
- End the deficit and give tax cuts to "those who need it most", or at least the ones that he needs votes from.
- Ban guns, except for the hunting guns that he happens to use for sport when he's not, say, windsurfing
After all, he has plans.
And apparently in John Kerry's America you can:
- Vote to authorize a President to use any military force deemed necessary to depose a dangerous dictator who potentially has weapons and intent to harm us, but not acutally ever use that force - and still get what you want if you do it "smarter"
- "Defend your country when you're young" and be a 3 month war hero fit to lead this nation, and also be patriotic by returning home and trashing the war and painting all of your fellow veterans as murderers and rapists.
Please, spare me. I'm getting depressed by John Kerry's America.
In John Kerry's America:
George Bush has:
- Lied us into the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time - apparently for the wrong reason having to do with making his oil buddies at companies like Halliburton rich while the bodies pile up in Iraq (more in September than there were in August, more in August than there were in July, more in July than there were in June). Or was it to avenge his daddy?
- Squandered our budget surplus to give tax giveaways to all his rich buddies
- Lost all of our good jobs overseas to make greedy companies richer.
- Sold out our government to the wishes of the Saudi Royal Family.
and George Bush wants to:
- Leave all of our children behind.
- Take away your Social Security checks.
- Keep you from having prescription drugs free from the government.
- Stuff his religious, bigoted, scientifically ignorant beliefs down every Embryonic Stem Cell's throat.
- Take a way a women's constitutional right to choose. (Choose what? Oh, sorry, we're not supposed to ask that question)
- Raid your house and toss you in jail for fun under the Patriot Act
While John Kerry would:
- have a good job for everyone. Not as high paying as being a gigolo Senator with a billionaire wife, but you know what he means.
- give everyone all the prescription drugs they want, preferrably from Canada
- Make the French and Germans like us. Oh, and the UN too.
- Hunt and kill the terrorists, but not go over there to do it
- End the deficit and give tax cuts to "those who need it most", or at least the ones that he needs votes from.
- Ban guns, except for the hunting guns that he happens to use for sport when he's not, say, windsurfing
After all, he has plans.
And apparently in John Kerry's America you can:
- Vote to authorize a President to use any military force deemed necessary to depose a dangerous dictator who potentially has weapons and intent to harm us, but not acutally ever use that force - and still get what you want if you do it "smarter"
- "Defend your country when you're young" and be a 3 month war hero fit to lead this nation, and also be patriotic by returning home and trashing the war and painting all of your fellow veterans as murderers and rapists.
Please, spare me. I'm getting depressed by John Kerry's America.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Define "Contain"
Could the United States, as an alternative to going to war in Iraq to depose Sadaam Hussein, have continued to “contain” him effectively?
That was a topic of discussion at a family gathering this last weekend. I was discussing the election and the war with my brother in-law. He’s no wild eyed lefty. He shares a military background with me. As do his brothers – Air National Guardsmen all - who, for the first time in their lives, are considering voting for a Democrat – John Kerry. They’re not gung ho Kerryites. They just have a beef with President Bush of his handling of the Iraq and even his decision to go to war in the first place. They strongly believe that we could have done more to “contain” Sadaam. I would guess that the stress that the war has put on National Guard unit factors into their displeasure with President Bush.
As these are men I respect and whose opinions are worth considering I gave this some thought this week. Could we have contained Sadaam satisfactorily in the post 9-11 era given that the terrorism ante had been raised considerably?
I, of course, had an opinion on this topic being the news junkie that I am. But I paused to give it further serious reflection. Here’s what I think:
It depends on what you mean by “contain”.
Prior to our deposing Sadaam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad by military force our containment of Sadaam had these features:
1.No fly-zone: air cover over 2/3 of Iraq with hundreds of sorties flown each year since 1991, putting our pilots at risk, with no foreseeable end in sight.
2.Sanctions: prohibiting Iraq from selling it’s most abundant and profitable resource. Did it stop Sadaam from an extravagant and profligate lifestyle of building luxury palaces in his own honor country wide? No. It did however result in the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children because of Sadaam’s greed and neglect of his people.
3.Oil for Food Program: the exception to the sanctions to remedy the child starvation. Did it save children? No. Instead it funded bribes to France, Germany, and Russia to keep the U.N. off Sadaam’s back. More that $10 Billion was siphoned from the program in a successful effort to corrupt both our allies and the U.N. to the bone to overlook Sadaam’s transgressions.
4.U.N. Resolutions: 17 in 12 years demanding that Sadaam comply with provisions of the peace deal that ended the Gulf War, including disarming and destroying the WMD’s. 17 resolutions demanding “serious consequences” that were rendered worthless by Sadaam’s gleeful defiance. Unenforced resolutions that threatened to render the United Nations authority as a world body irrelevant.
5.Weapons Inspections: the goal of which was not to find WMD’s. The burden of proof as established in the UN Resolutions was not on the inspectors to find them, but on Sadaam to furnish proof that he had in fact destroyed his weapons. Inspections that were inoperative after 1998 when Sadaam kicked the inspectors out of the country and Bill Clinton allowed that to stand. Inspections that were mocked when George Bush’s influence caused the reintroduction of inspectors in 2002 and Sadaam provided reams of useless data as evidence.
So, I’m left with two questions:
First, did the “containment” work?
Not in my opinion. Continuing the “containment” with our pilots continually at risk and Iraqis dying under our sanctions as Sadaam continued squandering their rationed national resources on palaces and death squads was immoral and irresponsible. Sadaam was free to operate in Iraq and bribe allies and international bodies to look the other way. He was free, in fact, to be a national sponsor of terror at least in the Middle East in general and possibly with al Qaida directly. This was not a tenable situation after 9/11.
Second, did the weapons inspections – as John Kerry has said – “work”?
Not in my opinion. Granted that stockpiles of WMD’s have not been located in Iraq since our invasion last year. However, there remain two possibilities for that: 1) that he had destroyed all of the WMD’s and 2) that he hid them or transferred them out of the country to Syria and Lebanon.
Not only did every intelligence source believe that Sadaam had WMD’s, but events since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 tell me that the second option is the most likely. Two examples:
- convoys of trucks were aerially photographed leaving Iraq into Syria in the weeks preceeding the invasion
- Terrorist al Zarqawi of Iraq was implicated in a bombing attempt at an embassy in Jordan using chemical weapons acquired from Syria with Iraqi origins
So after reflecting on my friend’s concerns about the necessity of the War in Iraq I’ve arrived at my conclusion. It was not tenable to continue to try to “contain” Sadaam Hussein in the post 9/11 era. Sadaam continued to be a threat that we could not tolerate. The invasion was both necessary and justified.
That was a topic of discussion at a family gathering this last weekend. I was discussing the election and the war with my brother in-law. He’s no wild eyed lefty. He shares a military background with me. As do his brothers – Air National Guardsmen all - who, for the first time in their lives, are considering voting for a Democrat – John Kerry. They’re not gung ho Kerryites. They just have a beef with President Bush of his handling of the Iraq and even his decision to go to war in the first place. They strongly believe that we could have done more to “contain” Sadaam. I would guess that the stress that the war has put on National Guard unit factors into their displeasure with President Bush.
As these are men I respect and whose opinions are worth considering I gave this some thought this week. Could we have contained Sadaam satisfactorily in the post 9-11 era given that the terrorism ante had been raised considerably?
I, of course, had an opinion on this topic being the news junkie that I am. But I paused to give it further serious reflection. Here’s what I think:
It depends on what you mean by “contain”.
Prior to our deposing Sadaam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad by military force our containment of Sadaam had these features:
1.No fly-zone: air cover over 2/3 of Iraq with hundreds of sorties flown each year since 1991, putting our pilots at risk, with no foreseeable end in sight.
2.Sanctions: prohibiting Iraq from selling it’s most abundant and profitable resource. Did it stop Sadaam from an extravagant and profligate lifestyle of building luxury palaces in his own honor country wide? No. It did however result in the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children because of Sadaam’s greed and neglect of his people.
3.Oil for Food Program: the exception to the sanctions to remedy the child starvation. Did it save children? No. Instead it funded bribes to France, Germany, and Russia to keep the U.N. off Sadaam’s back. More that $10 Billion was siphoned from the program in a successful effort to corrupt both our allies and the U.N. to the bone to overlook Sadaam’s transgressions.
4.U.N. Resolutions: 17 in 12 years demanding that Sadaam comply with provisions of the peace deal that ended the Gulf War, including disarming and destroying the WMD’s. 17 resolutions demanding “serious consequences” that were rendered worthless by Sadaam’s gleeful defiance. Unenforced resolutions that threatened to render the United Nations authority as a world body irrelevant.
5.Weapons Inspections: the goal of which was not to find WMD’s. The burden of proof as established in the UN Resolutions was not on the inspectors to find them, but on Sadaam to furnish proof that he had in fact destroyed his weapons. Inspections that were inoperative after 1998 when Sadaam kicked the inspectors out of the country and Bill Clinton allowed that to stand. Inspections that were mocked when George Bush’s influence caused the reintroduction of inspectors in 2002 and Sadaam provided reams of useless data as evidence.
So, I’m left with two questions:
First, did the “containment” work?
Not in my opinion. Continuing the “containment” with our pilots continually at risk and Iraqis dying under our sanctions as Sadaam continued squandering their rationed national resources on palaces and death squads was immoral and irresponsible. Sadaam was free to operate in Iraq and bribe allies and international bodies to look the other way. He was free, in fact, to be a national sponsor of terror at least in the Middle East in general and possibly with al Qaida directly. This was not a tenable situation after 9/11.
Second, did the weapons inspections – as John Kerry has said – “work”?
Not in my opinion. Granted that stockpiles of WMD’s have not been located in Iraq since our invasion last year. However, there remain two possibilities for that: 1) that he had destroyed all of the WMD’s and 2) that he hid them or transferred them out of the country to Syria and Lebanon.
Not only did every intelligence source believe that Sadaam had WMD’s, but events since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 tell me that the second option is the most likely. Two examples:
- convoys of trucks were aerially photographed leaving Iraq into Syria in the weeks preceeding the invasion
- Terrorist al Zarqawi of Iraq was implicated in a bombing attempt at an embassy in Jordan using chemical weapons acquired from Syria with Iraqi origins
So after reflecting on my friend’s concerns about the necessity of the War in Iraq I’ve arrived at my conclusion. It was not tenable to continue to try to “contain” Sadaam Hussein in the post 9/11 era. Sadaam continued to be a threat that we could not tolerate. The invasion was both necessary and justified.
Exploiting Embryos
So, exactly how did Embyronic Stem Cell (EST) research become one of the main election year issues anyway? Do most voters in America lose sleep over whether or not the Federal Government, as opposed to private companies, is spending enough tax dollars on EST? Really? Is that what will drive you to the polls? While we're at war? Really?
However it became an issue, it is an issue. And rarely has a public issue been so propagandized, distorted, and exploited. And with the death of Christopher Reeves this week the exploitation will ramp up exponentially.
I already had my say on this blog on the topic of EST research. (July 29th, A Choice...Reason or Ignorance"). But let me just recap a few salient points:
1. George W. Bush did not ban EST research. He banned federal funding of stem cell lines that were not currently existing. That's federal funding, not all funding. Private companies are free to fund research, and if there were in fact a miracle cure to be found in this research they would be throwing dollars at it.
2. To date EST research, which has severe moral implications in destroying a life to obtain the stem cells, has not had any successfuly trials. In fact, several trials had to be stopped because of severe adverse reactions in trial patients. By contrast, adult stem cell research - which does not entail any of the moral issues - has shown potential. This simple fact has been widely distorted by EST supporters for unfathomable reasons. We should at all costs be pursuing cures through adult stem cell research.
3. Several disabled celebrities or family members are passionate activists for EST research. Ron Reagn, Jr (based on his father suffering from Alzheimer's) and Michael J. Fox who is suffering from Parkinson's come to mind. However, their emotional appeals are distorting the issues. Doctors concede that EST holds no promise for a cure for either Alzheimer's, in Reagan's case, or spinal cord regeneration in Reeve's case. Reeves himself acknowledged this. And the Parkinson's trials were the trials that had to be stopped. The EST activists are using these emotional, and understandable, appeals to distort the basic facts of the science of this research. EST doesn't work. Adult stem cells do.
4. Finally, the demagoguery of John Edwards saying this week that research that could be conducted under a John Kerry presidency could have had Christopher Reeves up out of his wheel chair walking is the lowest form of political pandering and exploitation of suffering I have seen in my long political life. No question about it. Despicable.
However it became an issue, it is an issue. And rarely has a public issue been so propagandized, distorted, and exploited. And with the death of Christopher Reeves this week the exploitation will ramp up exponentially.
I already had my say on this blog on the topic of EST research. (July 29th, A Choice...Reason or Ignorance"). But let me just recap a few salient points:
1. George W. Bush did not ban EST research. He banned federal funding of stem cell lines that were not currently existing. That's federal funding, not all funding. Private companies are free to fund research, and if there were in fact a miracle cure to be found in this research they would be throwing dollars at it.
2. To date EST research, which has severe moral implications in destroying a life to obtain the stem cells, has not had any successfuly trials. In fact, several trials had to be stopped because of severe adverse reactions in trial patients. By contrast, adult stem cell research - which does not entail any of the moral issues - has shown potential. This simple fact has been widely distorted by EST supporters for unfathomable reasons. We should at all costs be pursuing cures through adult stem cell research.
3. Several disabled celebrities or family members are passionate activists for EST research. Ron Reagn, Jr (based on his father suffering from Alzheimer's) and Michael J. Fox who is suffering from Parkinson's come to mind. However, their emotional appeals are distorting the issues. Doctors concede that EST holds no promise for a cure for either Alzheimer's, in Reagan's case, or spinal cord regeneration in Reeve's case. Reeves himself acknowledged this. And the Parkinson's trials were the trials that had to be stopped. The EST activists are using these emotional, and understandable, appeals to distort the basic facts of the science of this research. EST doesn't work. Adult stem cells do.
4. Finally, the demagoguery of John Edwards saying this week that research that could be conducted under a John Kerry presidency could have had Christopher Reeves up out of his wheel chair walking is the lowest form of political pandering and exploitation of suffering I have seen in my long political life. No question about it. Despicable.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
CBS's External Coverup, er..... Investigation
So news junkies: are we on pins and needles, waiting with baited breath, to see what oh what the results of the CBS external cover-up, er... investigation into Dan Rather's Memogate might reveal? Well, apparently we'll be waiting a little longer.
From today's Reuters:
"Les Moonves, the co-president of CBS parent company Viacom, told an analyst meeting that the review of the CBS "60 Minutes II" report being done by former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and retired Associated Press chief Louis Boccardi had no timetable for completion. But he said he did not want it to interfere with the Nov. 2 election.
'Obviously, it should be done probably after the election is over so that it doesn't affect what's going on,' he told a Goldman Sachs media conference in New York."
Let me get this straight: CBS, Dan Rather, and 60 Minutes had no problem airing a one-sided smear piece attacking a sitting President with fabricated evidence less than a month before his bid for re-election. That "affect" on the election they don't mind. But it's apparently unthinkable that they would conclude an investigation into this sloppy and unprofessional "reporting" in a timely manner before the election because it might affect it.
Well, yes if the results of the investigation show that there was, as it appears there was, collusion between the CBS staff and the Democratic National Committee and/or the John Kerry campaign to smear the President. I'm guessing that is a result they would rather announce after the election.
The question is: Where is the rest of the media on this story? Are they going to let CBS get away with stonewalling this "investigation"? Is any news organization going to do independent reporting on the key remaining questions of the scandal?
- Where did Bill Burkett get the fabricated documents if he wasn't the original source?
- Is it just coincidental that the broadcast of the 60 minutes story was coordinated to the day with the DNC's "Fortunate Son" ad campaign?
- Is it coincidental that the DNC chairman was using specific language ("sugar-coating") from the fake memos early in the day before the CBS broadcast aired?
Are there any journalists out working independently on this critical election related scandal? Or are they all sitting in the press room at CBS waiting for the handout from CBS on the results of the "external" investigation?
From today's Reuters:
"Les Moonves, the co-president of CBS parent company Viacom, told an analyst meeting that the review of the CBS "60 Minutes II" report being done by former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and retired Associated Press chief Louis Boccardi had no timetable for completion. But he said he did not want it to interfere with the Nov. 2 election.
'Obviously, it should be done probably after the election is over so that it doesn't affect what's going on,' he told a Goldman Sachs media conference in New York."
Let me get this straight: CBS, Dan Rather, and 60 Minutes had no problem airing a one-sided smear piece attacking a sitting President with fabricated evidence less than a month before his bid for re-election. That "affect" on the election they don't mind. But it's apparently unthinkable that they would conclude an investigation into this sloppy and unprofessional "reporting" in a timely manner before the election because it might affect it.
Well, yes if the results of the investigation show that there was, as it appears there was, collusion between the CBS staff and the Democratic National Committee and/or the John Kerry campaign to smear the President. I'm guessing that is a result they would rather announce after the election.
The question is: Where is the rest of the media on this story? Are they going to let CBS get away with stonewalling this "investigation"? Is any news organization going to do independent reporting on the key remaining questions of the scandal?
- Where did Bill Burkett get the fabricated documents if he wasn't the original source?
- Is it just coincidental that the broadcast of the 60 minutes story was coordinated to the day with the DNC's "Fortunate Son" ad campaign?
- Is it coincidental that the DNC chairman was using specific language ("sugar-coating") from the fake memos early in the day before the CBS broadcast aired?
Are there any journalists out working independently on this critical election related scandal? Or are they all sitting in the press room at CBS waiting for the handout from CBS on the results of the "external" investigation?
Friday, October 01, 2004
The Unasked Question in the Presidential Debate
I thought the 1st Presidential debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry last night was excellent as debates go. It was substantive and gave both candidates an opportunity to discuss national security issues.
Overall, I thought that John Kerry did a little better than I expected. He was more focused and less demagogic than usual and he made his case. I thought George Bush did a little worse than I expected. He missed opportunities to brag about his accomplishements and to sharpen the differences with his opponent.
I think George Bush's main mistake was in answering the questions that were asked, rather than answering the questions that he would want to ask to focus on his accomplishments. The questions were heavily geared toward events of the last year including the War in Iraq. They were very light on the issue of 9/11 and the radical restructuring of our government and our foreign policy that Bush achieved in his first 2/12 years. I would have advised Bush to include a reference to 9/11 in his answer to every question that was asked about Iraq.
In fact, to me anyway, the unasked question in the debate was:
George W. Bush could have knocked that one out of the park and scored a knockout victory. It's too bad that Jim Lehrer didn't ask it.
Overall, I thought that John Kerry did a little better than I expected. He was more focused and less demagogic than usual and he made his case. I thought George Bush did a little worse than I expected. He missed opportunities to brag about his accomplishements and to sharpen the differences with his opponent.
I think George Bush's main mistake was in answering the questions that were asked, rather than answering the questions that he would want to ask to focus on his accomplishments. The questions were heavily geared toward events of the last year including the War in Iraq. They were very light on the issue of 9/11 and the radical restructuring of our government and our foreign policy that Bush achieved in his first 2/12 years. I would have advised Bush to include a reference to 9/11 in his answer to every question that was asked about Iraq.
In fact, to me anyway, the unasked question in the debate was:
How have the events of 9/11 affected your view of national security policy, homeland security, and foreign relations?
George W. Bush could have knocked that one out of the park and scored a knockout victory. It's too bad that Jim Lehrer didn't ask it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)