MSM. Manipulating us since 1936.


arly voting is at record levels all over the country this election. From California to the New York Island, from the redwood forest to the Gulf stream waters, this land is casting votes early. Stateline.org says as many as 30% of eligible voters will be casting their ballots before Election Day; Jayson Blair's outfit says one-fifth. Also, early voters who die before election day may be forming their own polling demographic. All thanks to this "brilliant" idea of early voting.

Yet polls are coming out today which apparently don't account for any of these early voters. You have "registered voters" and "likely voters" being polled. Are pollsters hanging up if someone answers "I already voted." Perhaps the latter should be included solely in exit polling. But if they are, they sure aren't being counted in today's polls.

I'm now even more convinced that polls and the stories about them are suspect. In addition to whether pollsters are calling people in the afternoon, when a large chunk of possible voters are at work, there's much we don't know about the actual polling methods. Reporting that so-and-so number have responded between so-and-so dates doesn't tell us how many were called but answered "I don't want to be polled. Bye." Or how many busy signals went uncounted. Are we supposed to believe that you can keep altering your samples in mid-polling and the poll will still be accurate?

It makes sense only if you remember that election polling isn't about informing but influencing "wishy-washy" voters, as a Slimes reporter once put it. Since Rather's DNCBS, Halperin's ABC, Carville's CNN, and most other libstream media outlets are clearly branch offices of the al-Qerry Qampaign, it's hard to fathom why any rational person would give credence to polls commissioned and touted by these same partisan organizations. Especially those released the last weekend before Election Day, none of which count the quarter of us who've already cast our ballots.

	5:25 PM   0

Representing the men and women in blue who help keep us safe.


ith multiple exclamation marks, on September 10, 2004, Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, announced "Fraternal Order of Police Endorses Bush!!!" in his reelection effort, saying the president has "full support" of the nation's largest police labor organization (emphases supplied):

"For the past four years, President George W. Bush has proved himself to be one of the very best friends that rank-and-file law enforcement officers have ever had," Canterbury said from Albuquerque, New Mexico, where the group's National Board is meeting this weekend. "We are fortunate to have this man in the White House and we are proud to give him our endorsement today."

For a candidate to receive the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police, he must receive a two-third majority of the National Board, which comprises one Trustee from each of the organization's State Lodges. President Bush received the unanimous endorsement of the National Board.

"Our National Board, and the more than 318,000 members of the F.O.P., are very well acquainted with the President's record with respect to law enforcement because he has made the F.O.P. a partner in crafting national law enforcement policy," Canterbury said. "He has always been there for the rank-and-file officer, and we are eager to be there for him in November."

Canterbury described numerous important regulatory and legislative victories that were achieved by the Fraternal Order of Police with the help of the President and his Administration. His cited three of the most important as the passage of the "Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefits Act," the most significant expansion of the Public Safety Officers' Benefit program in a generation; the enactment of the "Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act," which exempts active and retired law enforcement officers from State and local prohibitions on the carrying of concealed firearms; and the adoption of new regulations giving law enforcement officers, firefighters, and paramedics stronger overtime protections.

"In just four short years, President Bush and his Administration have enacted some of the most beneficial changes to American law enforcement in the past five decades," Canterbury said. "And we look forward to helping him win another four!"

The Fraternal Order of Police is the largest law enforcement labor organization in the United States, with more than 318,000 members.

The labor organization also endorsed George Bush's election effort four years ago.

	5:06 PM   0

A war we didn't start, but one we will end only when we have totally annihilated every last islamofascist butcher, leader, cell, abettor, and sponsor no matter where they are, no matter what it takes, so no family member or friend of ours ever has cause to sign letters like the one below. That's what we're fighting.

An Open Letter to the American People

From members of the families of FF John T Vigiano, Ladder 132, FDNY; DET Joseph V. Vigiano, ESU 7, NYPD; Barbara Olson; Tom Burnett; Douglas Hamilton; Jean Hamilton; MAJ Stephen V. Long, USA; Wendy Ruth Faulkner; CPT Charles "Chic" Burlingame, AA 77; Robert David Peraza; Thomas S. Strada; Peter J. Owens, Jr.; Patrick Driscoll; LT Joseph G. Leavey, Ladder 15, FDNY; CM Ken Lewis, AA 77; CM Jennifer Lewis, AA 77; Michael A. Uliano; FF Mark Whitford, Engine 23, FDNY; Sonia Morales Puopolo; Cheryle D. Sincock, CS, Pentagon; Michael Horn; Jack L. D'Ambrosi; Howard G. Gelling, Jr.; Charles Lawrence "Chip" Chan; Roseanne P. Lang; Brendan Lang; FF Paul Tegtmeier, Engine 4, FDNY; Frank Wisniewski; Laura Marie Ragonese-Snik; Michael D. Diehl; FF George C. Cain, Ladder 7, FDNY; William Dimmling; Kaleen Pezzuti; Todd Pelino; Felicia Hamilton; CDR Patrick S. Dunn, USN; Dennis J. Pierce, CS, NY; ET1 Ronald J. Hemenway, USN; Wilson Flagg; Darlene Flagg; Gregory Kamal Bruno Wachtler; FF Tim Haskell, Squad 18, FDNY; BC Tom Haskell, FDNY; FF Kevin J. Smith, Haz-Mat Co. 1, FDNY; LEO George Gerard Howard, PANYNJ, ESU 8; Michael Boyle, Engine 33, FDNY; William H. Pohlmann, CS, NY; Paul Wesley Ambrose, M.D.; Dennis M. Edwards; Peter James Mulligan; Brett Bailey; Robert Coll; Jason David Cayne; Ricardo Quinn, Paramedic, FDNY; H. Joseph Heller; Robert Scandole; LEO Stephen Huczko, PANYNJ, whose brother Richard Huczko, a GE contractor, was killed in Iraq on Mar. 29, 2004; Thomas "Tommy" R. Clark; CPT David T. Wooley, Ladder 4 Engine 54, FDNY; FF Michael Brennan, Ladder 4, FDNY; Edward Strauss, PANYNJ; LT Christopher P. Sullivan, Ladder 111, FDNY; and FF Kenneth Marino, Rescue 1, FDNY;—from the godfather of James Andrew Gadiel;—from friends of the families of Thomas S. Strada; Peter J. Owens, Jr.; and MAJ Stephen V. Long, USA;—from friends of Charles Droz; William Caswell; CPT Vic Saracini, UA 175; SGT Timothy Roy, NYPD; Robert C. Miller; SGT Thomas E. Jurgens, NY St. Ct.; FF Ken Hatten, FDNY; FF Ed Sweeney, FDNY; FF Bill Burke, FDNY; FF Joe Spor, FDNY; Catherine F. MacRae; FF Steven Coakley, Firehouse 217, FDNY; and AA 11 and AA 77 crew members;—from the Sigma Chi fraternity brother of Kevin Francis Cleary;—from friends, from a former shipmate, and from a Naval Academy classmate of CPT Charles "Chic" Burlingame, AA 77;—from the handler and friend of K-9 rescuer Sirius #17;—and from attack survivor Juan A. Cruz-Santiago, CS, Pentagon.

Three years ago, on the day that began as a beautiful September morning, 19 men and their sponsors carried out a brutal and devastating attack on our country, leaving 3,000 innocent men, women and children dead, including our loved ones. In those first agonizing hours, and for weeks and months afterward as we searched for word of their fate, we were aware that the shock and horror of that day was not ours alone. With a gratitude we could not yet express, we felt the strong and steady embrace of our fellow Americans. The words, "Never forget," defiantly written in dust or humbly penned on makeshift memorials, were also permanently etched in our hearts. We will never forget your strength, your courage and your endless generosity.

We speak to you now in the same spirit that you spoke to us then, as Americans, united on behalf of our country. Like many of you, we feel that our nation is poised at a critical moment in history. Like our parents and grandparents before us, we know that the choices we make today will affect our children tomorrow. But we face a new challenge, a new kind of war and an enemy who is different from the enemies faced by earlier generations. This is not an adversary who can be reasoned with or appeased, this is an adversary who has repeatedly demonstrated that its means and ends are one and the same: the wanton slaughter of innocents.

After the attack, President Bush articulated the primary lesson of September 11, that simply reacting to danger after lives are lost is a weak and unacceptable national defense. He believes that taking the fight to the enemy is the best way to ensure that the enemy will not bring death to our doorstep here at home.

We agree.

Under the President's strong leadership in the war on terror and through the heroic efforts of our military forces, we are a safer country today. Two-thirds of al Qaeda leadership is dead, incarcerated, or on the run, its financing disrupted. The Taliban has been removed from power and training camps in Afghanistan and Iraq have been eliminated. On the domestic front, our dedicated law enforcement agencies are finally able to fight terror the same way they go after drug cartels; terrorists and terrorist cells have been thwarted in upstate New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Illinois and Florida.

The 9/11 Commission has provided this nation with a solid blueprint for going forward in the war on terror. It described the threat that killed our loved ones as a "gathering storm" which went unrecognized and unchecked for too many years and characterized the inability to predict the attack itself as a "failure of imagination." Looking forward, the Commission offered this pointed warning, "Once the danger has fully materialized, evident to all, mobilizing action is easier—but it then may be too late."

Through the prism of 9/11 and presaging the Commission's conclusion, President Bush looked at Iraq and Saddam Hussein's history, his willingness to use chemical weapons in the mass murder of his own citizens, his notorious attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, his record of giving financial aid and sanctuary to global terrorists—including members of al Qaeda—and his repeated refusal to cooperate with U.N. inspectors. He determined that this repressive regime was an intolerable danger to our country. Rather than waiting until it was too late to prevent a fully materialized threat, the President acted. We believe history will support the President's decision.

We speak to you from the heart, as citizens from all across the country and every political stripe. We are Republicans and Democrats, "liberals" and "conservatives," young and old. We are mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters and friends. We speak out from a profound sense of obligation to those we have lost and to the country that we love. Guided by core principles, President Bush has steadfastly told us who he is, what he believes and what he will fight for. He is a caring and decisive leader who is not afraid to make hard choices to keep this nation safe, by keeping it strong. He has sent a clear message to America's friends and foes that he will not waver in his resolve as the winds of political fortune change. He will not revert to the failed policies of the past which only served to whet the appetite of those who would destroy us. He will stand firm against our adversaries.

As Americans who have keenly felt the scourge of terrorism, we are inspired and energized to follow the President's lead, to rise to the occasion and get the job done. We are deeply grateful to President Bush, who rallied this nation on that dark September day, who has earned our respect and confidence, and whose leadership we trust to steer this country on the right path.

Three years ago, George W. Bush stood with us and vowed that he would "Never forget."

We stand with him now.

	5:40 AM   0

While "50 to 80 percent of the cost of most [flu] vaccines is liability insurance"—thanks again to Qerry's Band of TrialLawyers. (T-bone Treat: Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler)


ying liberal-in-chief al-Qerry would rather blame anything and everything he can on President Bush than face up (pun not intended) to the fact that his own pals and qampaign qontributors in the Lawsuit Industry are driving up the costs and driving out the manufacturers of flu vaccines, as pointed out by the Heartland Institute in this red meat quote from their February 2004 report:

The number of vaccine manufacturers in the U.S. has dropped from 20 to only three during the past 15 years largely as a result of lawsuits filed on behalf of supposed victims of vaccine side effects. Vaccine makers have been under nearly constant legal assault by lawyers.

Most recently, personal injury lawyers have filed lawsuits against the maker of Thimerosal, a vaccine preservative that contains mercury, claiming the compound is responsible for the recent rise in cases of autism. However, researchers have studied repeatedly the possibility of a link and have found no evidence.

According to legal expert Peter Huber, 50 to 80 percent of the cost of most vaccines is liability insurance. The risk of losing such cases, and especially the risk of losing a class-action suit that could cost the industry hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, has persuaded many companies to leave the vaccine marketplace.

Also, President Bush himself points out that "spending on flu preparedness has grown from $39 million to $283 million"—a 625% increase!—during his term. Although Qerry wants Qanada and its 30 million people to provide not only for their own vaccine needs but for those of America's 300 million people, he's miserably failed to show how any such "plan" would help more than a very small fraction of our citizens. Unless he knows of ten secret vaccine factories for every one Qanada admits to having, the facts show it currently has no existing production capability to make up the difference here in any significantly measurable way.

Hanoi John, you've been proven a liar once again. First this, now the Iraqi weapons depot that our own troops had emptied themselves and were guarding the whole time.

When are you going to apologize to President Bush for your lying about him, al-Qerry? Even after the facts were in you continued to beat those dead horses that, in reality, weren't even ever there. You owe not only our president and our executive branch officials and our military an apology, Flipper, but every American citizen one too. Are you going to apologize for your lies? Are you going to do the right thing for a change?

I doubt you have the manly courage, Senator No-Show, to face up now to your outright lies, misleading statements, and mistakes. That's why the real dead horse you're seeing get beaten this election isn't a horse at all. It's a donkey jackass.

	5:27 PM   0

Fortunately, a high-ranking official* at Liberal Utopia is once again fully prepared to step up to the plate to provide strong and compelling answers to this latest series of unanswered questions on behalf of Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry. (Right Voices)


n Sept. 1, [Q]erry began his intense criticism of Bush's decisions in the Iraq war, saying 'I would've done almost everything differently.' A few days later, I provided the [Q]erry campaign with a list of 22 possible questions based entirely on Bush's actions leading up to the war and how [Q]erry might have responded in the same situations. The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview. . . . Here are the 22 questions, edited only for clarity [and tongue-biting]:

“1. On Nov. 21, 2001, just 72 days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Bush took Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld aside and said he wanted to look at the Iraq war plans. Bush directed Rumsfeld not to talk to anyone else, including the National Security Council members and the CIA director.

“Questions: If a President [Q]erry [Bite your tongue, Bob] wanted to look at war plans pertaining to a particular country or threat, how would he go about it? Who would be included? What would the general war-planning process be in a [Q]erry administration [Bite your tongue, Bob]? Was it reasonable to look at Iraq at that time?

I would let everyone see our plans, Bob. That way, there would be no appearance of our hiding anything from anyone. Of course, there may be some parts of a war plan that would probably have to remain secret until we can let everyone see it. But I would make sure those aren't being kept secret unnecessarily. Also, I would want to look at every plan we have or might be making regarding a particular threat or country. That would allow me to see how the plans are developing and whether we need to make other plans or plan on changing the original ones. In general, my war-planning process would involve not only my cabinet, but the Congress, the United Nations, and all our allies. I would make sure they have input on whatever plans we're making by allowing them to offer suggestions on how to improve those plans. Not only that, if they are unhappy with any parts of our plans, I would work closely with them to change those plans so they feel happier about all such parts. As far as plans involving Iraq, I believe it wasn't reasonable to ever look at any while there was a chance we could've worked with Saddam Hussein to convince him about the need for him to cooperate fully with most if not all of the decisions of the United Nations.

“2. The CIA was asked in late 2001 to do a 'lessons learned' study of past covert operations in Iraq and concluded that the CIA alone could not overthrow Saddam Hussein and that a military operation would be required. The CIA soon became an advocate for military action.

“Questions: How can such advocacy be avoided? The CIA argued that a two-track policy—negotiations at the U.N. and covert action—made their sources inside Iraq believe the United States was not serious about overthrowing Saddam. Can that be avoided? How can diplomacy and covert action be balanced?

I would prohibit all advocacy, Bob. That's how. Not only by the CIA but by the military also. If, for example, I discovered that anyone in the CIA was advocating anything like military action, I would remind them of my policy and put a stop to it immediately. Then I would investigate who was advocating what and when so I could prevent any such advocating from happening again. I would also make sure that all covert actions are completely dependent on our diplomacy. If diplomacy is unable to resolve a potential conflict, then I would call a cabinet meeting to decide whether we should explore taking any covert actions. I would consult with the Congress and with our allies and the United Nations as well, to find out what they think we should do. If they cannot come to a consensus over whether and how we should proceed with any covert actions, I would put that option on hold until I can work out something with our allies that would let us reach a more mutually agreeable decision. That's how I would balance diplomacy and any possible covert actions.

“3. In January 2002 President Bush gave his famous 'axis of evil' speech singling out Iraq, Iran and North Korea as threats.

“Questions: Was this speech too undiplomatic? How would a President [Q]erry [Bite your tongue, Bob] frame the issues and relations with Iran and North Korea? Do you consider these two countries part of an axis of evil now?

Yes, it was very undiplomatic, Bob. And I'll tell you why. Right off the bat this president alienated these countries and lost the opportunity of ever bringing them on board as possible allies in our war on terror. Not only that, he alienated other countries that have close ties with Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, who would see those ties threatened by our alienating them. Those other countries, such as France, Germany, and Russia, felt alienated too. Now had we worked with those first three countries and made them allies, I have no doubt that those other three countries would've become our allies also. Then we'd have six allies more instead of just the sixty committed ones that this president currently has. I don't know about you, but sixty-six allies sounds a whole lot better than only sixty, let me tell you. I have a plan that shows how I would get me some allies here too. I would first rescind the axis-of-evil designation for both Iran and North Korea. Then I would work with our other allies to get these two to become our allies as well. Then it would be much easier for us to work out whatever differences we have with those two countries because we would be working with them as allies instead of adversaries.

“4. On Feb. 16, 2002, the president signed a secret intelligence order directing the CIA to begin covert action to support a military operation to overthrow Saddam, ultimately allocating some $200 million a year. Bush later acknowledged to me that even six months later, in August, the administration had not developed a diplomatic strategy to deal with Iraq.

“Questions: How should military planning, CIA activities and diplomacy (and economic sanctions and the bully pulpit) fit together to form a policy?

I have a plan for just this sort of thing, Bob. First, there would be a precise order for making plans, starting with the diplomatic side of it. Only if diplomacy fails, if the United Nations and our allies are all on board with going forward with more strong measures, and if the Congress approves our going forward, and if the American people are strongly behind us doing so, and if other voices like in the media and elsewhere agree too, then I would consider allowing additional plans to be made on, say, the CIA and military side. But, I would want both those agencies to come up with thorough plans that keep on the table our returning back to diplomatic plans if ever that becomes possible, so in case the situation changes we have that fall-back option. Otherwise, I would make sure there is a plan in place for coming up with more plans that take into account the need for additional plans in case such plans are needed too. That way, there would be a myriad of plans covering all contingencies, as well as taking care of the diplomatic, CIA, and military aspects of our planning.

“5. On May 24, 2002, Gen. Tommy Franks and the Pentagon's Joint Staff began work on stability operations to follow combat in Iraq. This was about 10 months before the Iraq war started. But it was not until seven months later, in January 2003, that President Bush became involved in the aftermath planning.

“Questions: How would you make sure that there was sufficient planning for both the war and the peace? What aspects would you want to be personally involved in or aware of as president?

Planning for the peace is just as important, Bob, as planning for any war. In fact, we should never go to war unless there is in place a solid and thorough plan for its aftermath which covers all the bases and every possible contingency and outcome. By having such a plan you won't be caught by surprise whenever any unforeseeable events occur or if the enemy changes their plans in response to seeing what yours is. That's why planning is so important, so you can know what to do when you go into new situations and experience previously unknown things that arise both during and after a war. Moreover, I would be personally involved in every aspect of plan making, from start to finish. From the lowest levels on up to the highest. I would be everywhere all the time. That's how much I would be involved in making plans. As a matter of fact, if you want to know more, I have a plan on my Web site for how I would make plans.

“6. On June 1, 2002, President Bush announced his preemption doctrine.

“Questions: Do you agree with it? What are the acceptable conditions for preemptive war? Bush has said that he believes the United States has a 'duty to free people,' to liberate them. Do you agree? Under what circumstances?

I do not believe in preemption, Bob, but in prevention. I have a plan to sufficiently prepare ourselves for the possibility of further attacks and to prevent those attacks from occurring before they ever happen. My plan is to work with our allies so we can ensure that such attacks are prevented by pooling our resources and discussing ways of preventing the need to ever resort to any kind of preemptive war. I do not agree with this president's belief that we have any duty to free people or to liberate them. That's a recipe for war which my plan is precisely designed to prevent. Under no circumstances should people be freed or liberated if that means risking an unpreventable war.

“7. In July 2002, President Bush secretly ordered that some $700 million be spent on 30 major construction and other projects to prepare for war. Congress was not involved or informed.

“Questions: How would you seek a relationship with the leaders of Congress so that they would be informed of such secret work? Should congressional leaders have an idea where you are heading? What should be the overall role of Congress in preparing for war?

Congress and the presidency should always be partners, Bob. Especially in preparing for war. In fact, I would involve Congressional leaders in every project and plan, even those that require a certain level of secrecy because they have to do with war plans. I know some say there's the increased possibility of leaks whenever you involve Congress like that, especially while we're preparing for war, which is unfortunate due to the fact that those leaks may tip off potential adversaries about what we're up to. But it is more important that Congress be involved in war planning so the leaders there feel they're involved and that they have a say. Even with leaks, the plan has a much better chance of succeeding because it's easier to get the support of Congress when its leaders feel they have a role to play in making that plan. Simply go to my Web site and you can see that it's all there in the outline of a summary of my plan to get Congress more involved in war-making decisions.

“8. In August 2002 (about seven months before the start of war in March 2003), Secretary of State Colin Powell told the president over a two-hour dinner that an Iraq war would have consequences that had not been considered or imagined. He said that an invasion would lead to the collapse of Iraq—'You break it, you own it.'

“Questions: What would you do after receiving such a clear warning from a senior cabinet officer or other person with comparable experience?

First off, Bob, I would never spend two hours eating dinner if there were important matters waiting to be resolved. I would, at most, grab a sandwich and eat on the run, perhaps stopping by a Coke machine on the way down to the situation room so I could catch something to drink. Ten minutes tops, that would be my policy on dinners with cabinet officers whenever there are important things to do. In any event, I would listen, even then, to what one of my cabinet officers was saying about a possible war. If he or she gave me clear warning about a country's collapse and other bad things, I would immediately reconsider my position and call a full cabinet meeting so we could discuss that warning and determine what to do next. As you know, in the Senate I was a committee chairman, so I know the importance of letting everyone have their say and offer their input. I would consult with the Congress and our allies as well and hear what they have to say too. Then if the consensus is we still might have to go to war, I would take the matter to the United Nations and work with the world community to come up with a solution that was in everyone's best interests. That's what I would do, Bob, if I ever received such a warning from any senior member of my cabinet.

“9. On Nov. 8, 2002, the U.N. Security Council unanimously (15 to 0) passed Resolution 1441 on new weapons inspections in Iraq. Powell thought it was a critical victory, putting the United States on the road to diplomatic success.

“Questions: What did this mean, now that Saddam seemed isolated and friendless in the world? Was strategic victory—getting Saddam out of power—possible through diplomacy or by continuing diplomacy and weapons inspections?

Being friendless, as you know, Bob, is a bad thing, of course. The sense of isolation and loneliness can make people do things that they might otherwise not do or think is wrong. I can empathize with Saddam being put in the position this president put him in, feeling isolated and having little or no options. Being forced to comply with outside demands that he cooperate fully with an inspection process that was imposed unwillingly on him, his only choices were to voluntarily comply and risk losing all those weapon systems which were keeping him in power, or not cooperate and be drawn unwittingly into war and a possible ouster. Either way, his back was in a corner seeing nothing ahead of him but the end of his regime. So is it any wonder that he resisted and refused to cooperate? If we had given him more options he might have been more willing to work with the world community and resolve the situation peacefully through diplomacy. I believe the latter was possible if we had only been willing to do what some of our allies had proposed. All France, Germany, and Russia were asking is give inspections a chance.

“10. In November-December 2002, major U.S. force deployments began but were strung out to avoid telling the world that war was all but inevitable and that diplomacy was over. Rumsfeld told the president that the large U.S. divisions could be kept in top fighting shape for only two to three months without degrading the force.

“Questions: How might a President [Q]erry [Bite your tongue, Bob] have handled this? What is the role of momentum in such a decision-making process?

I would've had them wait, Bob. I do not necessarily agree with the secretary's assessment. When I was serving in Vietnam I would wait days, sometimes weeks on end without anything happening; and I saw no appreciable loss in my fighting ability. I didn't see any of it in the four or five men under me either. Had my entire four-month tour been spent waiting, but at the end of it I was ordered into battle, I have no doubt that I would've been able to fight just as well then as I was when I first began that tour. Momentum, in such cases, is not measured by the amount of time anyone spends moving in a certain direction. Only by how much and how far they're actually moving in it. With respect to Iraq, we were already moving in one particular direction. There was little if any chance we were going to start moving in a new direction before the question of war or peace was finally resolved one way or the other. But let's absolutely be clear about this so there can't be room for any distortion: Our troops actually were waiting before they weren't moving.

“11. On Dec. 21, 2002, CIA deputy John McLaughlin gave a major presentation to the president on the intelligence evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The president was not impressed and asked where the good, strong intelligence was. CIA Director George Tenet twice assured the president that the WMD case was a 'slam dunk.'

“Questions: What might a President [Q]erry [Bite your tongue, Bob] have done when he smelled weakness in an intelligence case?

I would not have tolerated it, Bob. I would've demanded more information, even if that meant giving our intelligence agencies more time. But we could've used the extra time anyway. It would've allowed the inspections to continue much longer than they had. It also would've given us at least a few more chances to persuade allies like France and Germany to join us in enforcing all the UN resolutions in the event Saddam Hussein failed to stop obstructing that inspections process. It would have given Saddam himself a cooling-off period in which to reconsider his actions that were being viewed by many as direct violations of those resolutions. It would've opened up the possiblity that we'd find better options than the ones we had. All sorts of good could've come from our just taking the time to make one hundred percent sure that what we were doing was the right thing, the best and correct thing. We'll never know now what might have happened had we only given Hans Blix and his team the year or so they were asking to finish their inspections of Saddam's weapons.

“12. On Jan. 9, 2003, the president asked Gen. Franks: What is my last decision point? Franks said it would be when Special Forces were put on the ground inside Iraq.

“Question: Had the president already passed his last decision point when he ordered such a large military deployment and such extensive CIA covert action to support the military?

Yes, Bob. And I'll tell you why I say that. Once the president set this country down a path that led to a rush to war, there was no turning back. Even before the first CIA covert operation it was way too late to stop any of it. Sending our troops over there the way he did caused Saddam Hussein to go even further on the defensive. It just made the whole situation much worse than it otherwise might have been. Had we just backed off some and given Saddam a little breathing room instead, he would've felt less constricted in his actions. He would've felt it was more in his interests to voluntarily cooperate with the weapons inspectors; would've been more inclined to let them complete their job. But this president wasn't about to afford Saddam any maneuvering room at all. He just let the Iraqi leader dangle there like a puppet, feeling like he had no control, and growing angrier and more defensive the whole time. Anyone would feel that way. That's why it was so important to give Saddam reasons to believe that he could do the right thing vis-à-vis the inspections process, regardless how many times he tried to thwart it before, and could still come away unscathed with his regime fully intact. But this president never even gave him the chance. Putting troops over there destroyed every prospect that such a mutually beneficial outcome would happen, which left Saddam no options and no choice but to become more entrenched.

“13. Around this time, in January 2003, Rumsfeld told the president that he was losing his options, and that after he asked U.S. allies to commit forces, it would not be feasible to back off. Rumsfeld asked to brief the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Vice President Cheney, Gen. Richard Myers and Rumsfeld briefed Bandar on Jan. 11, 2003, telling him 'You can count on this'—i.e., war.

“Questions: Do you agree with Rumsfeld's assessment? Andy Card, the Bush White House chief of staff, thought the decision to go to war was not irrevocable, that Bush could pull back, though the consequences would be politically expensive. How does a president credibly threaten force without taking steps that make the use of force almost inevitable? Should foreign governments be briefed in this way?

They should always be briefed, Bob. On all aspects of what we are planning. But we should always emphasize to them that such plans are not firmly set, that they may be changed at any time depending on the progress of events and what directions they may take. This should clear up with them how we're going to proceed if we do. I'm sure foreign governments would welcome that level of alterability in our plans because it gives each of us a larger set of options to not only consider but to act on should the need ever arise. To answer your first question, I do not believe that any war is inevitable. There are always options. And if a war can possibly be avoided, it should be. Our nation's credibility in these circumstances does not depend on whether we are actually willing and able to go to war, but rather, on our willingness and ability to work closely with our allies to avoid war at all costs.

“14. On Jan. 13, 2003, the director of the National Security Agency, Lt. Gen. Michael Hayden, issued a formal director's intent on how to support Gen. Franks in a war with Iraq. Previously, on his own, Hayden had reallocated some $300 million to $400 million of NSA funds to Iraq-specific signals intelligence programs to support a war without the specific knowledge or approval of either Rumsfeld, Tenet or Bush.

“Questions: Was this good planning? What would be the procedures for such decisions in a [Q]erry administration [Bite your tongue, Bob]?

I would never allow any such advanced decision-making to take place, Bob. It is the kind of initiative that I would go out of my way to discourage because it encourages things like planning for future actions and events which may or may not take place. It does not matter that NSA regulations allow for such a reallocation of resources. It sends the wrong kind of signals to both our allies and our nonallies alike. Suddam Hussein, for example, would see such preparations and take them to be a threat; or he'd feel unduly pressured and more inclined to dig in, or feel he has even less of an incentive to cooperate with inspectors. It is especially dangerous with respect to the relations we have with our allies. They may consider such decisions to be ill-timed or even rash, making them feel left out and alienated from the decision-making process, or giving them reasons to have second thoughts about wanting to take part in anything that might be construed as a foregone conclusion. I doubt it is the kind of preparation they would ever like to see. I doubt I would, either.

“15. On Jan. 20, 2003 (two months before the war), the president signed National Security Presidential Directive 24 to set up the office for reconstruction for Iraq.

“Question: What do you think of the timing of this?

I think the timing of it was very suspicious, Bob. Here he had a plan to deal with Iraq after the war, and the war hadn't even started yet! That advanced planning shows the president was looking ahead to not only rush into war with Iraq but to the reconstruction of that country afterwards. He should not have planned what to do after the war because he never should've rushed into war to begin with.

“16. On Feb. 7, 2003 (six weeks before war started), French President Jacques Chirac called the president and was very conciliatory. He said, 'If there is a war, we'll work together on reconstruction. We will all contribute. I fully understand your position is different. There are two different moral approaches to the world and I respect yours.' Bush was optimistic but took no action.

“Question: What would a President [Q]erry [Bite your tongue, Bob] have done about this conciliatory statement?

I would have not only welcomed it, Bob, I would've seized on that opportunity to bring France partly into the coalition, thus making it more legitimate. President Chirac wanted to work with us, and we could've worked with him. I would've asked him what he might need for his country to be able to be part of what we were doing. I'm sure something could've been worked out to accommodate any of those different positions that he had with us. As you know, contributing is a two-way street. He would've contributed to our efforts in Iraq and we would've contributed something back in return. Our two countries would've both been better aligned, for example, in our approaches to the reconstruction effort. France, after all, did have close ties with Saddam Hussein's regime. We could've used that to our advantage by letting it help us become more sensitive to what we would find and who we would be dealing with once we began the reconstruction phase in Iraq.

“17. On March 17, 2003, concluding that Saddam was stalling and lying, Bush ordered war while U.N. weapons inspectors were still in Iraq.

“Questions: Was this decision right or premature? Was there any other action, short of war, that would have effectively increased pressure on Saddam?

It was premature, of course, Bob. The president was so anxious to rush to war that he only let the inspections go on for just half a year. Not enough time to complete all of them, as chief inspector Hans Blix assured us, saying it could take at least a year or perhaps two. Saddam Hussein wasn't going anywhere. We had him contained. He would've eventually tired of trying to obstruct the inspectors like he was doing and would've had to give in to them. If not, we could've toughened the inspection process so that more would've got inspected. Saddam would've felt the pressure then. He knew we were going to inspect his country for weapons whether he liked it or not. All he could do was take shots at our pilots who were enforcing the no-fly zones. Hardly anything to be worried about. If he had downed or killed one of our pilots, we would've threatened him with even more inspections. So eventually Saddam would've been inspected thoroughly. There was no need at all to rush to war.

“18. On Sept. 30, 2003 (six months after the start of the war), British Prime Minister Tony Blair told his annual Labor Party conference that he had received letters from parents whose sons were killed in the Iraq war, saying that they hated him. 'And don't believe anyone who tells you when they receive letters like that they don't suffer any doubt,' Blair said. President Bush has said emphatically that he has no such doubts.

“Questions: Can a president afford to have doubt in a time of war? What is the role of doubt in presidential decision-making?

There is always room for doubt, Bob. No matter what the undertaking any person takes. When as a young man I served my country in Vietnam I had plenty of doubts. Doubts about the war, about the reasons for our being in a once peaceful land and bombing its civilians. Doubts about the ability of our military commanders to know what was going on in that country and what they should be doing about it. Doubts about the course of the war and about why I was being sent on covert missions to Cambodia, which we were supposed to recognize as being neutral. So I know what it is to experience real doubts, especially about war. War is always a doubtful prospect no matter how justified it may seem. No doubt should ever be ignored. The problem with this president is that he never leaves ample room for doubt in his decision-making. I would always leave such room for it because doubt can be very healthy even when it comes to matters of war.

“19. Secretary of State Powell has said that he believed Cheney had a 'fever,' an unhealthy fixation on al Qaeda and Iraq that caused him to misread and exaggerate intelligence and the threat. In Powell's view, Cheney and others—Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, vice presidential chief of staff Scooter Libby and Douglas J. Feith, undersecretary of defense for policy—were part of 'a separate little government.'

“Questions: Your reaction? What should or could a president do about this discord among top officials of his administration?

I would have no such separate government, Bob. My government would be unseparate. Any discord within it would be examined and weighed and carefully considered before moving on to whatever might be the next course of action. Any display of feverishness for one set of action will be innoculated, if you will, by a heavy dose of what may be termed a type of flu vaccine against the kind of fixation that you pointed out. I wouldn't allow my government to listen to deputy secretaries or undersecretaries because, frankly, their opinions aren't important. The added benefit of that is is that there would be less discord all around because fewer people would be in a position to sow any among my top officials. That's how I'd take care of it.

“20. Powell also had said he believed that the Bush administration had become 'dangerously protective' of its decisions on Iraq and was unable to consider changing course.

“Question: How does a president set up a system or process to enable his administration to alter course or get a clear-eyed evaluation of its actions and its consequences?

Your premise answers it all, Bob. A president should never be protective of his decisions, dangerously or otherwise. He should actually be able to consider changing course before considering to take it. That's what I would've done. I would've called in all my top advisors and asked them what changes might I need to make in the event I decide to take a certain course. If they couldn't come up with a sufficient number of these changes I would doubt whether I should even be considering that course. A course must be changeable if you don't want it to keep going in the same direction. That would be my policy.

“21. President Bush has said on the record that he did not directly ask Powell, Rumsfeld or his father, former President George H.W. Bush, whether he should go to war in Iraq. He did ask national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and his senior aide, Karen Hughes.

“Questions: Your reaction? What sort of consultation process would you have on major national security decisions? Would you consult former presidents, even former President Bush?

He should've asked everybody, Bob. That's the problem. He should've asked the United Nations, the French, the Malaysians, the Village People, President Putin, Prime Minister Tony Blair, both Tarik Aziz and that Baghdad Bob guy, the Germans, Barbra Streisand, the Swiss, the Swiss boarding school I attended growing up, the Brazilians, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the World Wide Web, Linda Ronstadt, the Finnish, the Italians, the Sopranos, the South Africans, the North Africans, the East and West Africans, the Japanese, the Australians, the Grateful Dead, the El Salvadorans, the Chileans, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Secretary General Kofi Annan, Little Miss Muffet and her Tuffet, Hans Blix, Hansel and Gretel, Edna St. Vincent Millay, the Pointer Sisters, the Nepalese, the Dali Lama, the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, George Soros, Marvin T. Martian, the AFL-CIO, Millie, Madona, Cher, the Arbor Day Foundation, and a whole host of others I could name. All important allies, officials, and organizations who should've been asked but weren't. He didn't ask any of them, Bob. I would've asked each and every one of them before ever committing our nation to war.

“22. Asked in December 2003 how history would judge his Iraq war, Bush suggested that history was far off. 'We won't know. We'll all be dead,' he said.

“Questions: How do you judge his Iraq war? What do you think history's verdict is likely to be?”

It really depends on the outcome, doesn't it, Bob? If the outcome is bad, history will judge it as being bad. On the other hand, if the outcome is good, history will have a more favorable view of this war. Personally, I've been very consistent in judging it a complete and utter miserable failure. The wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time and all that. A war that's a total diversion from the war, too. So, even though the outcome isn't determined yet, I have the courage to stand up and stand in judgment of it right now.

* Me. The only ranking official here, actually.

	3:07 AM   0

"I decided that bloggers were just a bunch of losers with no audience and no credibility who sat around their living rooms in pajamas all day hatching crackpot theories that never pan out. They did a special about this on CBS News (on 60 minutes II) just the other night."

	ANNCOULTER.COM
	Boldly going where no conservative's gone before. Click to get the full picture.

nn Coulter was on FOX's Hannity & Colmes last night discussing al-Qerry's knee-jerk reactionary accusations on the heels of a bogus story about an Iraqi base that was never in any need of guarding, which the Spew Dork Slimes breathlessly ran based on the flimsiest of evidence before all the facts came in. Ann also had a chance to comment on the pie-throwing incident that occurred during her speaking appearance Thursday in Tucson, Arizona.

In the video playback of that incident you hear and see:

[R]aises...point that I make in my book, which is, if you take away the terrorism, and liberals would hate Muslims—(gasp).

When the moonbat wrecks a scrim Like a big-a ditzy Dhimm That's-a felony

Two pie-throwing liberals run across the stage, completely missing Ann—who can dodge and move gracefully even in a short, sexy black dress. But completely making Ann's point about liberals' love of violence.

After the video, Ann said a liberal's view of Muslims absent their violence is that "they would just be anti-choice, fanatics, anti-gay marriage." It's just that liberals "love the terrorism part; and then an act of terrorism is committed against me, coincidentally."

Lionel Waxman writes a brief account of Ann's Tucson appearance, too. He says Ann continued with her speech after the running, now-jailed liberals tumbled and smashed their faces backstage. "Other than that, it was a typical Coulter appearance, with rhetorical bombs exploding every few seconds. There are a lot of people who like Ann Coulter and her bomb-throwing ways. And you can count me among them." Ditto.

Last but not least, John Hawkins posted his recent, second interview with Ann at Right Wing News (BitsBlog). To the point as well are her assessments of President Bush—"A 21st century Churchill"—and TeRANTnRAVEza Heinz Qerry—"To be first lady, first you have to be a lady."

I second Ann's call to get out the vote:

Vote on November 2nd. Democrats get to vote as often as they like, so we should all vote at least once.

Hear, hear.

	8:29 PM   0

The choice couldn't be more clear.




Freedom Leads




Tyrants Lead


oting is a right we citizens enjoy today solely because our forefathers were willing to fight and sacrifice to secure the blessings of liberty for not only themselves but their descendants as well. It is a gift repaid in part each and every time a citizen casts his or her ballot in our elections. How we vote sets in motion a course of events that ultimately affects the measure of fighting and sacrifice needed to pass those liberties on to the next generation. Whether this measure is lowered or raised depends on whom we choose to lead us. That is true for every election. More than ever for this one. Weak leadership during the 1990s set us up for higher levels of fighting and sacrifice today. Thankfully, strong leadership has turned that around and is now lowering it even further. It is a course we must, for the sake of our lives in this country as we know them, stay on during the rest of this decade.

President Bush has kept us and our nation safe throughout these trying past three years. He is acting to ensure that we completely win this war against all bloodthirsty madmen of this world so our children's generation won't ever have to fight it themselves.

Opposing every one of those efforts is Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry.

John Qerry is the only person in the world who believes that terrorism was somehow just "a nuisance" in the past, who wants us to go backwards to a time when America foolishly brushed it off as such and ignored it at our own peril. As a consequence, he hires people who laughably lump World War IV with the so-called war on poverty and the war on drugs, as if it was just another metaphorical war. One can only wonder what he thinks the men and women jumping to their deaths from the top floors of the burning World Trade Center is a metaphor for.

He has called World War IV "an exaggeration," to which his own hairmate John Gone Qerrwarts responded:

It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th.

Terrorist wolves trying to circle around our children still appreciate Qerry's remark.

For a person who keeps touting his so-called plans, Hanoi John has none when it comes to saying how he could do a better job compared to the successes and accomplishments of our tested wartime president. No amount of duck-n-shoot camouflage Qerry wears or that's provided for him by CBS, ABC, and other Partisan Activist Media can blend into any nuanced background these stark actions and statements by Qerry himself:

Qerry says Iraq has nothing to do with World War IV, that it is "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." He puts his head in the sand when he ignores how beheaders like al-Qaeda terrorist Zarqawi were being sheltered in that country by Saddam Hussein himself:

Abu Musab Zarqawi was killing Americans for years before the coalition of the willing invaded Iraq, deposed Saddam Hussein and cleared his killing fields. The United States asked Saddam in early 2003 to extradite Zarqawi for killing an American diplomat on the streets of Amman. Saddam declined, as expected, because even then Zarqawi was setting up his terrorist organization in Baghdad

He belittles our soldiers there who are hunting and fighting this terrorist madman for participating in, as he puts it, "a colossal mistake." He uses those same soldiers as a mere prop for his protest votes in the Senate aimed at denying our soldiers the armor and weapons they need to defeat beheaders like Zarqawi. Worse, Qerry tells us that Iraq is otherwise merely "a diversion."

These kind of terror assessments by Qlinton Administration officials during the 'Nineties ultimately led to the planned, horrific murder of 3,000 Americans and other nationals on September 11, 2001.

Now John Qerry hires many of these same officials to be his advisers. This is what al-Qerry wants to go back to, a place from which already 3,000 men, women, and children won't ever be returning. To ensure that no more won't be either, we must never go back there. We must never depend on unreliable or false allies like France which scam the United Nations into making decisions that give tyrants a pass and threaten international peace and security. We must never allow these pretenders of peace and panderers for a phony world community to halt the liberation of oppressed countries and the progress of individual liberty unfolding before our eyes in the Middle East. Progress that is in no small part due to the strong leadership of President George W. Bush.

That is what's at stake in this election. Do we let the cause of individual freedom determine our course, or the plans of dictators, tyrants, corrupt nations, and government bureaucrats decide it?

The choice is in your hands.

	5:55 PM   0

What has Junior Senator John Qerry ever done for women's rights that can even begin to compare?


omen's right to vote is now the law of the land in Afghanistan. So is the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which the now-democratic Afghan government ratified last year. Burqas are no longer the required dress of women. Nor are women stoned any more for showing an ankle. They can all go to school now and get an education. No woman is shot at half-time during local soccer games because she dared defend herself against an abusive husband.

Where was NOW or the so-called Democratic Party while all this unprecedented progress on behalf of women's rights was going on? That's easy enough to answer.

This may come as a shock to no one, but Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization of Women, was out there complaining and blaming President Bush all along about—that's right—failing to stand up for women's rights:

In only three-and-a-half years, George W. Bush and the right-wing leadership in Congress have undermined and eroded more than four decades of advancements for women. . . . We are declaring a State of Emergency for women's rights and calling upon all of our allies and supporters to get involved in the election process to put an end to the relentless attacks on women.

In the real world, President Bush stopped forever the Taliban's truly relentless attacks against the entire female population of Afghanistan, thus ending an actual State of Emergency for women's rights in that country. You're welcome, NOW.

Our president sums it up best:

Think about what happened in Afghanistan. It wasn't all that long ago that the Taliban ran that country. Young girls couldn't even go to school. They were not only harboring terrorists, they had this dark ideology of hate. And people showed up in droves to vote. Freedom is powerful. People have gone from darkness to light because of liberty. The first voter in the Afghan presidential election was a 19-year-old woman.

"Thank you, Mr. President. The women of Afghanistan couldn't have advanced that far without your steadfast, principled leadership," said Mz. Gandy nowhere on record.

And it's a remarkable advancement for Afghan women and girls, too; far from what any nonliberal would consider a real undermining and erosion by the Taliban of their rights:

Before the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan following the attacks of September 11, the Taliban regime was the gold standard for horrifying treatment of women. The burqa became the symbol of female oppression. It was invoked by women's rights activists of various stripes worldwide as the worst of the worst. The writer Azar Nafisi quotes a woman functionary of the straitlaced Iranian regime as saying, "Look at Somalia or Afghanistan. Compared to them, we live like queens."

Saying that Iranian women—who are hung for fornicating—had it better, shows just how much of an advancement in rights that President Bush made possible for all the women of Afghanistan.

Even NOW recognized this before its leaders thought that helping women there might be a bad thing for their organization politically:

In 2001, NOW regularly issued "Action Alerts" on the plight of Afghan women. One of them reported that—

when the Taliban took over the capital city of Kabul in September 1996, it issued an edict that stripped women and girls of their rights, holding the Afghan people hostage under a brutal system of gender apartheid. . . . Women were prohibited from being seen or heard. The windows of their homes were painted, and they could not appear in public unless wearing the full-body covering, the burqa. Women were beaten for showing a bit of ankle or wearing noisy shoes.

Fast forward to October 9, 2004, when about 4 million women voted for the first time ever in Afghanistan....

The folks over at NOW seem even less enthusiastic about the progress in Afghanistan. The NOW "Issues" page headed "Women in Afghanistan" hasn't been updated for two-and-a-half years. And there is no mention of the Afghan election on the main pages of the NOW website. Calls requesting a statement went unreturned.

President Bush has done such a monumental job advancing the rights of Afghan women that the issue is not even on NOW's radar screen any more. "Thank you, Mr. President," Mz. Gandy would say if she weren't such a blatantly partisan dipstick.

Of course, NOW's parent company—the Dhimmicratic Party—would also rather see Afghan women shut up, wear their burqas, not vote, and return to being half-time entertainment at soccer games. If its rank-and-file had their way, that's exactly what Afghani women would be doing right now because there would never have been an ultimatum demanding that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden—or for that matter, any kind of invasion to liberate the Afghan people for fear that we might somehow steal all their oil. "Better that Afghanistan's oil is free from harm than any of its women," a Dhimmicrat spokesperson wanted to type in a memo at the time before realizing he wouldn't be able to transmit it to DNCBS's Dan Ra^ther's Selectric All-In-One scan/copy/fax machine before the invasion.

Fortunately for all the girls and women of Afghanistan, President Bush is prevailing against NOW and the Defeatism Party's opposition to his strong leadership. While its alleged activists were sitting safe and secure in their comfortable, well-appointed offices blaming and complaining, our president was out there making a positive difference in real women's lives. As commander-in-chief of our Armed Forces, he has proven himself both willing and able to take the bold, decisive actions required to transform such former terrorist havens as Afghanistan and Iraq into lands of unprecedented promise and hope. Liberty is spreading where none existed before. Schools teaching respect and tolerance have replaced terrorist training camps. People of all genders are participating for the first time in actual elections.

President Bush is honestly making things better for women, both in this country and worldwide. In the meantime, Dhimmicrats do nothing but whine and complain about how you aren't being fooled by their lies that we're all living in the Taliban States of America where everything is much worse than it ever was even in pre-2001 Afghanistan. Their lies aren't fooling anyone, however. Because the true facts show that with President Bush, W does stand for women.

	3:30 AM   0

The one he's for and the one he's against.


y remarkable coincidence, they both happen to be the same war. Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry said so himself on September 7 (emphases added):

Today marks a tragic milestone in the war in Iraq; more than 1,000 of America's sons and daughters have now given their lives [in Iraq] on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom, [on behalf of] the war on terror.

He miserably failed to recall the over 100 additional defenders of our freedom who have given their lives in Afghanistan and the wider Operation Enduring Freedom theater. He also forgot to mention the 1,096 innocent civilians that Islamofascist terrorists have cold-bloodedly murdered in 2004 so far.

Don't worry, waffle lovers. It didn't take al-Qerry long to try separating out Operation Iraqi Freedom from World War IV. In Iowa this week, Hanoi John called Iraqi Freedom a "profound diversion" from the war on terror. How's that for winning votes of the families whose loved ones are fighting actual terrorists in that country? Qerry says our president "likes to confuse" the war against real terrorists in Iraq with the war against real terrorists elsewhere. As if Qerry has somehow seen any real difference between these baby-killing cut-throats based solely on their geography. What is Flipper proposing besides a profoundly artificial Two Sets of Terrorists?

Not one to let Iraq itself go undivided, al-Qerry has seen that there are, like his Two Americas, Two Iraqs as well. The one that possessed weapons of mass destruction which we should seek out and destroy—alone if we have to—by any and all means necessary; and the other Iraq that either never possessed them or could be coaxed somehow into voluntarily giving up any such weapons through diplomacy, sanctions, or inspections. It wouldn't be the first time he has done this.

A decade ago, after Saddam Hussein invaded, raped, and tried to annex Kuwait, al-Qerry showed one of his constituents, Walter Carter, how much he thought there were Two Iraqs back then too. On January 22, 1991, he said there was the Iraq that would eventually come around and respond to United Nations resolutions and sanctions all on its own, if only given a chance:

On Jan. 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war.

It took Hanoi John just nine days after making this statement to realize that there was also another Iraq, one against which any such course would be futile because the intransigent dictatorship of Saddam Hussein understood no language other than brute military force:

From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established [to oust Hussein from Kuwait by force if necessary] with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.

Even if you don't have at your fingertips a copy of Liberal Lexicon of Loony Leftist Logic, it's still possible to decipher Qerry's inconsistency here. "Strongly and unequivocally" supporting something includes "harshly and relentlessly" criticizing and opposing the very same thing until it becomes evident that it's no longer a politically expedient thing to do.

Of course, Two Wars, Two Iraqs, Two Americas, and Two Sets of Terrorists aren't the only things Flopper's flipping on his waffle iron. There are his Two SUVs, which in reality is just the one that he says he does or doesn't own, depending on whether he's describing it to automobile union members or to environmental activists, respectively. There are his Two Patriot Acts as well: the one he voted for and said was "quite necessary," and the same one that he wants instead to water down and "replace" and says puts "restrictions on American's basic rights." Another shifty pair are his Two Private Meetings with enemy representatives in Paris, France while our troops were still fighting, dying, and being held prisoner in Viet Nam.

No wonder Dungorats had to put Two Johns on their ticket. That's how many you need just to begin flushing only the above amount of all their incoherent crap. Even the one person at the head of it cannot be succinctly and accurately described except in a similar fashion:

Two Faced.

	1:00 AM   0

Programs are good. MSM newsbreaks aren't. For examples:


ood: "Welcome to the Glenn Beck program. Let's see what's happening in the news. Here's an interesting item: Clowns are gathered outside the national headquarters of the Democratic [Demospastic] Party, protesting that party's ongoing attempt to put them all out of a job. Said one clown, 'I'm one of those sad clowns, but even I'm not as sad as these guys are.' Elsewhere in sad clown news, Senator John [Q]erry said...."

Bad-n-Ugly: "This is CNN radio news. Today some evil conservatives were behaving evilly because they're just evil, says expert evilologist Evil Kenevil. (soundbite) 'Yes, they are quite evil.' In other evil news about evil conservatives...."

Good: "You're listening to the EIB Network. Hi, your host Rush Limbaugh here. I just saw this during the break. John [Q]erry's wife declares that being an heiress is the most important job in America, second only to being married to an heiress. Let's go to the phones to hear what you think...."

Bad-n-Ugly: "CNN radio news update. I'm Leff Tyst. Senator John [Q]erry on the campaign trail said that Mr. [President] Bush is evil. (soundbite) 'Yes, this president is quite evil.' Meanwhile, Mr. [President] Bush was also on the campaign trail. In other news, the Bush Administration announced a policy that, according to PETA spokesperson Treeh Ugger, will destroy all animal life on planet Earth. (soundbite) 'Yes, it's quite apparent that they want to evilly destroy all animal life.' In other evil news about evil conservatives...."

Good: "(music) Let freedom ring.... Welcome to the Sean Hannity program. We have a very special guest today who'll be joining us at the bottom of the hour. But first, did you hear about the latest John [Q]erry flip-flop? Today he says he's all for the war now. Yesterday, of course, he called it—and I quote—'the wrongest everest war in human history.' Does anyone, including [al-Q]erry, know where he stands on anything? Speaking of schizophrenia, John [Q]erry went hunting with another borrowed $15,000 shotgun but, out of deference to PETA, refused to shoot anything...."

Bad-n-Ugly: "This is CNN radio news. In Iraq, there was a two-car pile-up in the middle of Baghdad involving several taxi cabs. Although at least one fender was completely destroyed, a Coalition spokesman still maintains that it was just an accident. But an expert terrorologist, Ihate Therite, says terrorists might be behind the accident. (soundbite) 'Yes, I'm quite concerned that terrorists might be behind it.' In other evil news, several evil conservatives with heart conditions got flu shots, evilly stealing them from the babies they were about eat...."

Fair and balanced talk radio is fine and all. Still, does it have to include interspersing the right and good with the wrong and bad? Is it too much to ask that a FOX Radio News do the newsbreaks?

	3:13 PM   0

Public school teachers and librarians, al-Qerry's second wife believes you don't really work.


aura Bush, the one and only wife of our president, has been a public school teacher and a librarian, and is a mom as well. But what does TerRANTnRAVEzah Heinz-Qerry have to say about that? "I don't know that she's ever had a real job." O.K.

Snob and arrogant, just like her second husband. Of course, when she found out that regular Americans didn't really appreciate this latest blatant display of her snobbery and arrogance, her handlers issued an unconvincing apology on her behalf saying she "didn't recall" that Laura Bush has done more real work and made for herself more of a career than any marrying-into-money Momma-T ever had.

Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry backs up what his second wife says. After all, without her he wouldn't have access to all her accountants and lawyers that let arrogant snobs like themselves escape paying more than a 12% tax rate, while us poor schmucks have to pay well over 15%, 20%, and more. Well below the 30% rate that President and Mrs. Bush both have to pay in taxes. Qerry's idea of "paying their fair share" obviously doesn't apply to himself or his snob second wife. Just another nuisance—one that he believes doesn't change him much at all either.

	4:42 PM   0

If you aren't voting for GWB, you're misguided.

—See also related  Posts and  Links.

n addition to the fact that no sitting senator has ever beaten an incumbent president in any election in our nation's history, as well as the fact that during wartime We the People don't change horses in midstream, there are ample reasons both to re-elect President Bush and to demand that Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry serve nothing other than a long prison sentence at Fort Leavenworth.

Below are the posts and sites related to Benedict Johnny which I'm including with "Why al-Qerry will lose" linked from the ad here and in the sidebar. Additional such posts and links will be indexed there right up till Election Day.

Also on Liberal Utopia—


Issues

With Qerry & Qo. it's both sides fit all:

Tuesday, October 19, 2004, 2:28 PM AM | 33Kb

John Qerry's Best Friend: The Extortionist Litigator

As a trial lawyer himself, Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry loves the fact that his pals in the Trial Lawyer Industry™ (the largest block of contributors to his campaign, by the way) are able to pad their pockets by filing harassing lawsuits against the businesses where you work and to do everything they can to wreck our economy at the same time.

Sunday, October 17, 2004, 9:51 PM AM | 40Kb

Dhimm in the Mirror

Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry blames President Bush. Tomstuctionist Daschole blames the Republicans. Al-Sharptongue blames now-murdered "Joooo Interlopers." Dhimmicrats blame America. Without even a sidelong glance, they've all passed through the looking glass.

Saturday, October 16, 2004, 1:13 AM | 55Kb

Qerry the do-nothing senator

Even when al-Qerry wasn't playing hooky from the job the people of Massachusetts hired him for, he still didn't really get much done.

Thursday, October 14, 2004, 9:30 PM | 37Kb

Qerry's Qondescending Tone

"I could care less about the tone in Washington."—Dhimmoonbatic National Chairman Terrorence McAwful

Wednesday, October 13, 2004, 10:51 AM | 52Kb

1944 Presidential Debate

Tune in tonight for a very special episode of Quantum Leap where President George W. Bush leaps into FDR, Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry into Thomas Dewey, and Jim Lehrer into Edward R. Murrow-just in time for their mid-WWII presidential election-year debate!

Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 7:23 PM | 35Kb

Qerry thinks he's Christ

Qerry's hairmate, Qerrwarts, says he'll make the lame walk!

Tuesday, October 12, 2004, 5:14 PM | 32Kb

Free speech for me but none for thee

Qerry Qampaign top official Dimpled-Chad Clanton, erstwhile Gorebot2000 staffer, threatens AnybodyButQerry groups: "You better hope we don't win."

Monday, October 11, 2004, 1:17 PM | 32Kb

I know what Qerry's plan is now

It isn't just to lose, but to lose badly.

Saturday, October 09, 2004, 8:37 PM | 33Kb

Read My Plan. No Few Taxes.

Either visit al-Qerry's Web site...[or see his upcoming speech]

Friday, October 08, 2004, 11:10 PM | 33Kb

5.1 Trillion Dollar Budget Surplus?

Did Qerry just say that's how much the budget surplus was when President Bush took office? [Qerry's off by over a factor of forty!]

Thursday, October 07, 2004, 1:33 PM | 33Kb

Time to sack your entire campaign staff again, al-Qerry

Starting with Joe Look!no-heart.

Tuesday, October 05, 2004, 1:24 PM | 33Kb

Qerry's Hairmate Says You're 'Insane'

Trial lawyer, mumbojumbo channeler, and now psychologist.

Monday, October 04, 2004, 6:09 PM | 33Kb

John Qerry Is Against the Death Penalty for Convicted Terrorists

But favors the death penalty (with absolutely no appeal) for unborn babies—the most truly innocent, choiceless and voiceless among us.

Wednesday, September 29, 2004, 1:48 AM | 52Kb

Can you believe that our President gave THIS speech?

How much can one person mislead with just a single speech?

Tuesday, September 21, 2004, 7:36 AM | 57Kb

Qerry's 'Service' Record

Attempted deferment, a falsified scratch-n-scoot bugout, AWOL from Naval Reserves, maligning the very Vets he abandoned, private meetings with enemy officials—and that's just for starters.

Saturday, September 18, 2004, 5:03 PM | 36Kb

Qerry supporters assault small child

This is something I would never even consider making up. Truth, in this case, is more ugly, extreme and dangerous than any fiction.

Wednesday, September 15, 2004, 5:20 PM | 34Kb

CBS Clarifies

And John Qerry's campaign dies.

Tuesday, September 14, 2004, 1:02 AM | 34Kb

Qerry Advisor and Rather Denied Bail

Qerra^thery among liars. The tie that binds JFQ, the DNC and MSM.

Sunday, September 12, 2004, 1:08 PM | 34Kb

Rather Indicted For Murder

Of the mainstream media in particular, and of the tru^th in general. [Qerry Qampaign clearly involved.]

Thursday, September 09, 2004, 11:38 AM | 34KB

Demagoguerats, you don't want to go there

These are the shocking revelations from Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry's selectively-released records and President George W. Bush's fully-released ones.

Monday, September 06, 2004, 1:00 PM | 34Kb

What's wrong with your campaign, Qerry?

Why all the skakeups?

Friday, September 03, 2004, 6:11 PM | 34Kb

Qerry wants us to spend $150 billion PER YEAR paying for everyone's health insurance

So much for his plan to cut the budget deficit.

Saturday, August 28, 2004, 1:31 PM | 38Kb

Quadrangulation

Mapping the al-Qerry campaign's expansion of a Qlintonesque strategy

Saturday, August 21, 2004, 1:36 AM | 44Kb

John Qerry's Quagmire

What started out as by the way has now become all there is.

Saturday, August 14, 2004, 12:39 AM | 71Kb

Qerryism

No experience. No message. No record showing any real achievement. Nothing but a bunch of words and promises.

Tuesday, July 20, 2004, 12:48 PM | 32Kb

Sandy Berger gives new meaning to the word 'briefcase'

Or should that be "Sandy Burglar's briefs case"?

Thursday, July 15, 2004, 10:31 AM | 39Kb

Qerry's stands on any issue

While tucking in his little boy Johnny before untucking him, Flippin' Flopface told the vice-ambulance chaser a bedtime story.

Wednesday, July 14, 2004, 5:56 AM | 33Kb

Monday Morning Quarterback Party

Except it won't be a Monday, but a Wednesday morning its members will be doing it from with respect to themselves exactly sixteen weeks from today.

Friday, June 25, 2004, 12:40 AM | 35Kb

Peek-A-Boo Candidate

“You can't see me, my eyes are closed.”

Friday, June 18, 2004, 10:15 PM | 64Kb

Confessions of a former 'progressive'

"If you're young and conservative, you have no heart. If you're older and still a liberal, you have no brain." [TeRAVEzah Heinz-Qerry's heartless-to-brainless story included.]

Wednesday, June 09, 2004, 5:27 AM | 98Kb

More Seedy and Sinister Sides of Sickocrats

‘Anything to win, anyway we can’ means not just ‘anyone but Bush’ but ‘anytime's good for a Big Lie paid for by Big Money’ and—more ominously—‘anyplace is good for a pre-election terrorist attack.’

Friday, June 04, 2004, 7:28 AM | 38Kb

ABB crunching

AnyoneButBush is thrown into the trash heap of other lost campaigns along with the losing losers who engage in them.

Saturday, May 29, 2004, 11:27 PM | 39Kb

Liberal Football

Rule 1: Our team only has to reach the goal line to score a touchdown, but yours has to go past it, into the parking lot, down the road, onto the highway, into the next town, hop aboard a spaceship, land on the moon and reach the goal line inside an atmospheric-domed stadium that won't even be built for another thirty years, before we'll admit you scored one.

Thursday, May 27, 2004, 2:45 PM | 70Kb

AOL Spews: Qerry says Bush does have a plan

And he says "it sounds Grrrrrrrrreat!"

Monday, May 24, 2004, 1:15 AM | 43Kb

House Democrat Leader Unfairly Attacked for Innocently Quoting from al-Qaeda Magazine

Nancy Pelosi just thought we needed to know what all the terrorists have been saying all along, 'sall. Like, you know, as a public service and stuff.

Thursday, May 20, 2004, 5:45 AM | 69Kb

Depending on 'failed' failed

If I had a dime for each time Jerman-Frenchboy al-Qerry (the "al" stands for aloof) miserably failed to leave that word out of the interviews and speeches he's given since announcing his candidacy, I'd have more than enough to make this blog—plus a dozen others—completely ad-free.

Sunday, May 02, 2004, 2:25 PM | 35Kb

Part-time senator still gets full-time pay & bennies

Seems Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry believes it's better to have practically no voting record at all than to give American taxpayers their money's worth.

Friday, April 30, 2004, 2:25 PM | 37Kb

Questionnaire for Qerry

Although George Will hasn't gotten around yet to posing another 28 questions to the chairwarmer for Hildabeast Demoswitch's presumed nominee for president, I've sent the Waffle House 2, or 4, maybe 5, no make that 6, all right 10 questions of my own. Here are the replies I got....

Tuesday, April 27, 2004, 9:10 AM | 33Kb

Take the ribbons from my hair

Qlueless al-Qerry's ribbons flying through the air 33 years ago did less flip-flopping than he's doing now.

Sunday, April 18, 2004, 9:56 PM | 35Kb

No Waffles on No Guns

One issue on which al-Qerry has never flip-flopped.

Saturday, April 10, 2004, 9:44 PM | 73Kb

Anti-America OnLine Loses Self-Control

Another only-liberal news outlet [quoting another al-Qerry lie] takes a crack at undermining the American people's resolve.

Wednesday, March 31, 2004, 11:14 AM | 47Kb

Serpents slithering through the gates

Also known as "a coalition of Democratic Party interest groups, armed with millions of dollars in soft money...rapidly constructing an unprecedented political operation designed to supplement the activities of Sen. John F. Kerry's campaign."

Wednesday, March 31, 2004, 1:08 AM | 55Kb

28 Queries for Qerry finally answered

These are the questions Washington Post columnist George F. Will posed to Hanoi "Secret-Service Agents R SOBs" John last month, but through some glaring oversights on the candidate's part have sat at the bottom of the Campaign HjQ's f-ing parakeet cage all this time.

Monday, March 29, 2004, 7:43 PM | 36Kb

Liberal Utopia Endorses al-Qerry

"A Realer Wheeler-n-Dealer Niler There Never Was"

Saturday, March 27, 2004, 1:24 AM | 39Kb

'Apology' not accepted

"Offered" by "'best friend' of al-Qerry Campaign['s] offical."

Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 8:12 AM | 36Kb

Qerry - the best politician Chinese military money can buy

"Newsweek reports that more than $28,000 in illegal contributions was funneled into the campaigns of Bill Clinton and John Kerry, and that 'the contributions came out of $300,000 in overseas wire transfers sent on orders from the chief of Chinese military intelligence - and routed through a Hong Kong bank account controlled by [China's People's Liberation Army Lt. Col. Liu Chaoying].'"

Monday, March 22, 2004, 3:26 PM | 41Kb

Bush is a uniter, Democrats are dividers

Add to that, "Kerry killed many civilians and admitted to committing war atrocities."

Tuesday, March 16, 2004, 1:46 AM | 35Kb

A debate a day

"President Bush could more than call Chairman 'I've Ruled There Ain't No Mo' POWs in Vietnam' Qerry's bluff by demanding that Hanoi John debate him every single day through Election Eve."

Sunday, March 14, 2004, 4:45 PM | 32Kb

Middle-Class Tax Cut Redux

"I still haven't gotten over the one Clinton gave us. Why do we need another?...promise, that is."

Friday, March 12, 2004, 5:16 AM | 32Kb

Who would Osama vote for?

"Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry."

Ridiqule and Joqes

Not laughing with them...:

Saturday, October 02, 2004, 1:02 PM | 37Kb

Qerry's Plan

Liberal use of Qetchup.

Saturday, September 18, 2004, 3:03 PM | 34Kb

Qerry Documents Faxed To CBS

CBS's 60 Minutes II received copies of JFQ's journal, all of which came from his own personal files. Whether they're authentic or not, the facts based on them raise quite a number of very serious questions.

Tuesday, September 14, 2004, 5:05 PM | 35Kb

Qerry Joqes

As much as I tried I couldn't make them as boring and stale as their subject.

Tuesday, August 31, 2004, 5:27 PM | 44Kb

Qerry Floppins

This ain't your father's Disney® movie.

Tuesday, August 17, 2004, 4:34 AM | 36Kb

Qerry's secret plan for Iraq

Thinking a blog called Liberal Utopia was among those with a "need to know," the al-Qerry campaign sent its owner all 4 pages of Senator Qhristmas-in-Qambodia's secretive plan.

Saturday, July 24, 2004, 4:34 AM | 167Kb

Mickey Moore walks into a Waffle House...

And he brought a bunch of friends radical extremist whacked-out liberals who tolerate him only because he's paying for all their waffles.

Saturday, July 24, 2004, 1:50 PM | 37Kb

Wonder if Julia Thorne's going to be at the convention?

Cheering for her ex-husband Hanoi John and his richer wife?

Thursday, July 22, 2004, 5:52 PM | 49Kb

John-John QarriedWarts' Advisor Apologizes

He's really, really sorry about his getting caught.

Tuesday, July 06, 2004, 8:56 AM | 31Kb

My impressions of Qerry's sidekick

Turns around, lifts collar up, turns back around....

Thursday, June 10, 2004, 9:17 AM | 34Kb

Liberal Navy

Inspired by Denny Wilson's USS Jimmy Carter.

Saturday, May 29, 2004, 6:04 AM | 36Kb

Unimaginative Waffling

First in a series of not so creative things you can do with your waffles.

Tuesday, May 25, 2004, 4:12 PM | 33Kb

'I decline the nomination before I accept it'

Or will he? Al Qerry never says the same thing twice. That's called 'nuance.'

Sunday, May 02, 2004, 3:38 PM | 32Kb

French waffles again a favorite

al-Qerry's favorite main course for breakfast, lunch, snacks, dinner, supper,..., is now the first result again when searched for on Google.

Friday, March 19, 2004, 10:15 AM | 35Kb

California moves closer to secession

"John al-Qerry, senator of the state from which the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center boarded the two planes that were used to kill nearly 3,000 people in those attacks, called Schwarzenegger to congratulate him...."

Bait-and-Switch Contingency

Sabotaging Hilldabeast's broomstick before it leaves the closet:

Friday, October 01, 2004, 8:14 AM | 47Kb

Real Reason Qerry's Face Was So Orange Yellow

Artificial tan or artificial wan?

Tuesday, September 14, 2004, 3:40 AM | 32Kb

RIH

WYA 4 HRQ

Thursday, March 25, 2004, 7:01 AM | 34Kb

Qerry to Qlinton - Dems' bait & switch contingency

"It's August. The polls are looking none too good for al-Qerry...."

Compilations of al-Qerry's treason, lies, and other liberalisms shown on other Web sites & logs—

Qerry's Liberal Record

"I'm a liberal and proud of it."—HJFQ

The Man who Promises Everything...

"...is sure to fulfil nothing"

Summary Analysis of John Kerry's "The New War"

A review of the no-show senator's ideas ramblings about his GSAT (Global Security Aptitutde Test).

	8:32 PM   0