Friday, October 29, 2004
Some Thoughts
I have become convinced that the New York Times and CBS are reduced to preaching to the choir about the al-QaQaa "munitions looting -- security breakdown". People who actually think are not buying the story. A huge amount of evidence has come out that punches all kinds of holes in it. The most recent, out this morning, is the statement by Major Austin Pearson of the 3rd ID that he and his team removed some 250 tons of munitions and other materials from al-QaQaa in April 2003. It is still unclear exactly how much HMX, RDX and PETN was stored at the facility, and when, and what happened to it, but it is becoming clearer and clearer that the nut of the story -- that the US military allowed 380 tons of explosives to be looted by Iraqis during Operation Iraqi Freedom -- is not true. And the Times still hasn't mentioned that the Army has destroyed 400,000 tons of munitions in Iraq since the war began. (Do the math -- 380 divided by 400,000 equals about .001, or one-tenth of one percent. In the greater scheme of things, it would be what lawyers call "de minimis." ("a trifle")
The New York Times, in its rush to break the story, didn't do its homework, thereby putting another nail in the coffin of its once-proud reputation. I can barely wait for the day the Gray Lady displays a banner something like, "700 Pound Baby Gives Birth To Space Alien," a la the Weekly World News. Thank heaven that the story began to leak, which forced the hand of the NYT and CBS, who wanted to break the story on October 31 in a clear effort to affect the election in favor of John Kerry.
That Mr. Kerry glommed onto the story with the enthusiasm of a hungry bulldog grabbing a hamburger suggests, (a) he's desperate; (b) he's not getting much traction with other issues; and (c) he believes the remaining undecided voters are ignorant fools.
On Mr. Kerry, it seems that many of the bloggers who have recently endorsed him are saying things like, "He has said ...." and then go on to relate how Kerry will be an effective war president, will support the military, will be more effective in fighting terrorism than Bush. My only response: look at what he's done, not what he has said since he began running for president. It amazes me how those who in one breath say that "all politicians are liars" can in the next point to a politician's campaign promises as reason to vote for him. Especially when those promises contradict in a fundamental way almost everything in his public record.
I say, if you want to know the true measure of someone, look at what he does, not at what he says. Kerry has for 30 years been anti-war, anti-military and a self-described "internationalist" and demonstrated those sentiments in his actions. He is almost the archetypical "blame America firster." I find it difficult to believe that such a man can credibly claim that he will be a more effective leader against Islamofascist terrorists (who are getting at least tacit support from the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese, not to mention the UN) than George Bush, who has taken bold action to respond to the threat that perpetrated the murders on September 11.
For me, there's only one issue in this election. Let Congress deal with the domestic issues -- that's where the real policy is made on those issues anyway. As I have repeatedly said, national security is Job #1 for the President. John Kerry is not the man for that job. George Bush is -- he has proved that he will bow to no one when it comes to protecting the United States from its enemies.
The New York Times, in its rush to break the story, didn't do its homework, thereby putting another nail in the coffin of its once-proud reputation. I can barely wait for the day the Gray Lady displays a banner something like, "700 Pound Baby Gives Birth To Space Alien," a la the Weekly World News. Thank heaven that the story began to leak, which forced the hand of the NYT and CBS, who wanted to break the story on October 31 in a clear effort to affect the election in favor of John Kerry.
That Mr. Kerry glommed onto the story with the enthusiasm of a hungry bulldog grabbing a hamburger suggests, (a) he's desperate; (b) he's not getting much traction with other issues; and (c) he believes the remaining undecided voters are ignorant fools.
On Mr. Kerry, it seems that many of the bloggers who have recently endorsed him are saying things like, "He has said ...." and then go on to relate how Kerry will be an effective war president, will support the military, will be more effective in fighting terrorism than Bush. My only response: look at what he's done, not what he has said since he began running for president. It amazes me how those who in one breath say that "all politicians are liars" can in the next point to a politician's campaign promises as reason to vote for him. Especially when those promises contradict in a fundamental way almost everything in his public record.
I say, if you want to know the true measure of someone, look at what he does, not at what he says. Kerry has for 30 years been anti-war, anti-military and a self-described "internationalist" and demonstrated those sentiments in his actions. He is almost the archetypical "blame America firster." I find it difficult to believe that such a man can credibly claim that he will be a more effective leader against Islamofascist terrorists (who are getting at least tacit support from the French, Germans, Russians and Chinese, not to mention the UN) than George Bush, who has taken bold action to respond to the threat that perpetrated the murders on September 11.
For me, there's only one issue in this election. Let Congress deal with the domestic issues -- that's where the real policy is made on those issues anyway. As I have repeatedly said, national security is Job #1 for the President. John Kerry is not the man for that job. George Bush is -- he has proved that he will bow to no one when it comes to protecting the United States from its enemies.
Comments:
Post a Comment
