Thursday, September 30, 2004
Besides the fact that I disagree with him on most policy issues, and I don't believe that all wisdom resides in Washington, and I don't believe that more government is the solution to every problem, and I believe that overtaxing is a sure way to bog down an economy, I have a problem with the man himself. It comes down to trust. I don't believe the man is trustworthy.
Kerry's campaign has now admitted that his "Christmas in Cambodia" tale was a falsehood. His account of his legal career is somewhat overstated, as Beldar has shown (see link below). It is a matter of public record that he sold out his fellow Vietnam veterans in his testimony before the Senate in 1971. It is also a matter of public record that during the negotiations to end the Vietnam war, Kerry traveled to Paris and met with both the North Vietnamese delegation and the Viet Cong delegation, an act that may have violated Federal law against private party negotiations with foreign governments. I won't even go into Kerry's "random walk" tour of his positions on the Iraq war, but it's highly probable that, given enough time, he would express every possible position and nuance on the issue.
Because of all of this, and more, I have come to the conclusion that the man will say anything to get elected, just like Bill Clinton did, but he does it without an iota of the charm that Clinton has. (Speaking of Clinton, someone once said of him that "most people who run for president want to accomplish something; Clinton wants to be something." The same applies to Kerry, in spades.) Kerry's the kind of person I'd rather have as an enemy than as an ally, because I believe he wouldn't hesitate to sell me out if there was enough in it for him.
So I'll regard the replays and commentary on tonight's debate as a form of entertainment that enlightens -- something like watching the History Channel. But it won't change my vote.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
JOHN KERRY: We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today.
Talk about 20/20 hindsight!
Any idiot can second guess any decision based on information that becomes available after the fact. The point is, Senator, that Presidents have to act on the information they have available at the time. At the time, the CIA, France, Germany, Russia, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia were all saying, among other things, that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD.
Be careful what you wish for, Senator Kerry. If you are elected (an event which I fervently pray will not happen) I strongly suspect you'll find it much more difficult to make the hard decisions than it is to criticize someone else from the sidelines.
You need to read this column from the Nashville Tennesseean. I have long thought that the reporting from Iraq is about as reliable as the reporting you'd get from California if all the journalists were in San Francisco and never ventured further afield than Oakland. (Credit: Instapundit)
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Monday, September 27, 2004
One response I keep waiting for from the interviewers is the observation that the Iraqis are still recovering from 30-odd years of despotism, that they are gunshy about the United States because of our failure to support the revolt against Saddam that we stirred up in 1991, and that they're waiting to see if we're going to stay the course. Many of them must question why they should be willing to die for a cause the greatest power on Earth deems to be lost. In this context, Kerry's talk of disengagement can't be cause for Iraqi optimism.
Most Iraqis are interested in surviving. If the majority of Iraqis get the idea that the United States is going to cut and run they'll start making deals and allying with whomever appears to be the strongest contender for filing the power vacuum after the fall of Saddam. Whoever that might be, it's unlikely to be anyone that the United States would feel comfortable with. There is a real possibility that Iraq could become the Haiti of the Middle East.
The Iraqis are (justifiably, in my opinion) concerned about the possibilty of Kerry winning the US election, because of Kerry's and the other Dems' talk about reprising Vietnam and unilaterally pulling out. If Kerry wins, his defeatist talk will become a self-fulfilling prophecy -- look for the Iraqis to side with the bad guys, because to do otherwise would be suicidal. If Bush wins, they might just take heart and make something of their country.
Long-term, if the United States bails out, it will be disastrous for our foreign policy. If we're going to wave in the political winds, how could Kerry rationally expect to convince other countries to ally themselves with us, only to be left hanging out to dry? Why should proven allies like the UK, Australia, Italy, Japan and Poland risk their own citizens' lives and their national treasure in support of a fickle United States? Most importantly, what nation would be willing to accept assurances of support from a Kerry government that bailed out of Iraq?
Kerry likes to say that the United States has isolated itself from the rest of the world. If he's elected, he'll come to learn the real meaning of isolation.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
He also gave some opinions I agree with but his "plans" for doing so are either the same as what the Bush admin. is already doing or are pie-in-the-sky.
Take "We must win in Iraq" as an example. The Bush administration is already training the Iraqis to provide their own security; we already have thirty-odd countries involved (notwithstanding Kerry's sister's best efforts to alienate some of them). Who the hell is he talking about when he claims he'll get "our allies" to help? France has said that they won't send troops even if Kerry's elected. The UN? That's a joke, right? They can't or won't even do anything when it's painfully obvious that intervention is required (see, Darfur). But mostly, given Kerry's long history of antiwar activism, I just don't believe him. As I've said before, I think he'll cut and run at the first opportunity. Unfortunately, he's telegraphing it, and by doing so he is giving aid and comfort to the terrorists (not "militants" or "insurgents" or any other mealy-mouthed euphemism of the kind used by Reuters and the AP) that are trying to ruin Iraq, and their fellow travelers.
UPDATE 23 Sept: Ralph Peters has a lot more to say about this. (Credit: Powerlineblog)
Some other things I don't believe: that he'll raise taxes only on "the rich;" that he'll "balance the budget" (possible only if he pulls out of Iraq); that he'll "create jobs" (by taxing the life out of the economy?). I could go on and on.
Contrary to what you might think, I don't think Bush has done a stellar job -- he's allowed Congress to bury the budget in pork, he reined in the Marines just as they were preparing to finish the job in Fallujah, and he's made some blunders in other areas (the steel tariff comes to mind). But we only have two serious candidates to choose from, folks, and there's a vast difference between them. There's only one issue that counts -- transnational islamofascist terrorism -- and until that threat is vanishingly reduced, everything else is secondary. Bush understands that. I don't think Kerry does.
Monday, September 20, 2004(0) comments
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
All I can say is WOW!
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
If Israel's government had the same worldview and morality as the government of Iran, would Arafat be alive? Would there be any Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank? Would the cities of Damascus, Baghdad, Teheran and Cairo exist?
Friday, September 10, 2004
I have a theory that is equally speculative: Hillary did it! She and Bill don't want an incumbent Democrat in '08, and they certainly have lots of contacts in the DNC and even in the Kerry campaign. Makes sense, dont'cha think?
CBS better be right, or it should get out of the news business right now. I've looked at the analyses, the overlays, and the quotes from named document forgery experts and members of the Killian family and I now believe the documents were forged. CBS News is in a world of hurt right now, and the only way they can come out of this with so much as a shred of credibility is to name their sources and experts for the story. Michelle Malkin has a post on whether "journalistic ethics" (perhaps now as much of a joke as "legal ethics" and "military justice" used to be) permit the disclosure of sources who lie to the reporter.
As for myself, I haven't watched CBS News regularly for decades, and haven't watched "60 Minutes" in years. Now I know why.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
feckless, feigning, fibbing, finagling, flaky, flappable, flighty, flipflopping, foolish, foppish, French-looking, frustrated, fumbling, funereal, furious, fussy, fuzzy-thinking.
Saturday, September 04, 2004
If they do not do so soon, and often, and gain ground against those who would try to remake the world in the image of 7th century Arabia, then I am very afraid that Osama bin Laden will get the clash of civilizations that he seems to crave.
If that happens, it will be ugly, and brutal, and catastrophic for the entire world. As Steven Den Beste said in this post, if the Muslim world allows itself to be seduced by the likes of the monsters who carried out the atrocity in Beslan, and as a result forces a showdown with the West, the Muslim world will lose, millions will die, and the human race will be the worse for it all.
I pray with all my heart that Muslims of good will (and I have no doubt that most are) recover their religion from madmen like the Iranian mullahs, bin Laden, Zawahiri, Abu Bakar Bashir and Zarqawi , as soon as humanly possible.
Friday, September 03, 2004
First, Senator, anyone in this country can criticize any politician about any position or action he's taken or declined to take. Read the freakin' First Amendment, you pompous blowhard! You don't get a lifetime free pass for your 4 months in Vietnam. Especially since what we face now is nothing at all like Vietnam. Frankly, it scares me that you still want to fight in Vietnam when we might have to deal with terrorists in Chicago.
Second, how do you respond to Zell Miller, former Marine sergeant?
Thursday, September 02, 2004
I've seen/read a lot of anecdotes like this about Bush (e.g., the story about his hugging the girl whose mom was killed on Sept. 11).
Other than his CPR of the hamster and his rescue of Rassmann, the only anecdotes about John Kerry I've read or heard involve bucking lines and saying, "Do you know who I am?" to those with the temerity to complain.
I think we do know who (and what) you are, Mr. Kerry.
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Only a politician who is retiring could make a speech like that about his own party. Devastating!