Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2005 July
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| All Star Athletes for Bush |
| 10.21.04 (11:40 pm) [edit] |
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/2 1/91510.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/2 1/91510.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...
Ernie Banks, Daniel Berry, Carlos Beltran, Craig Biggio, Josh Davis, Adam Dunn, John Elway, Bob Feller, Natalie Golda, Matt Hasselbeck, Bernie Kosar, Steve Largent, Karl Malone, Anthony Munoz, Jack Nicklaus, Mary Lou Retton, Dot Richardson, Nolan Ryan, Janet Lynn Salomon, Chris Spielman, Roger Staubach, Kerri Strug, Lynn Swann, Todd Walker....
I suppose there are some celebrities that have a clue!
|
|
|
| |
| Dems disqualifying Military ballots again |
| 10.21.04 (11:33 pm) [edit] |
Election offices don't have to send new ballots abroad
A federal judge rejected the Justice Dept. ideas, which came after Ralph Nader lost his appeal.
By Mario F. Cattabiani
Inquirer Staff Writer
HARRISBURG - Saying it could do more harm than good, a federal judge last night denied a Bush administration request to force Pennsylvania counties to send new absentee ballots to thousands of oversees voters and to count the results up to two weeks after Election Day.
Justice Department lawyers had asked U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane to impose such fixes to the unusual ballot dilemma caused by independent candidate Ralph Nader's on-again, off-again status as a presidential candidate in Pennsylvania.
"The 'remedies' proposed by the government invite unpredictability to an otherwise orderly and time-tested elections process," Kane wrote.
The state Supreme Court on Tuesday affirmed a lower court decision tossing Nader from the ballot, citing fraudulent signatures on his nominating petitions. But weeks earlier, election officials in some of the state's 67 counties sent absentee ballots overseas with Nader's name, while others sent forms without it.
Some of those overseas voters, including soldiers serving in Iraq, are now being asked to pick from an incorrect slate of presidential candidates. And, as a result, they are being deprived of the same options given to voters at home, Justice Department lawyer Amy Zubrensky argued.
They "have the right to correct ballots," she said.
During two days of testimony, the federal government offered Kane a menu of what it called potential solutions - all of which the state opposed and all of which would have had to be done under a tight deadline, with Election Day less than two weeks away.
As an alternative to extending the deadline to count ballots past the Nov. 2 election, the Justice Department suggested the court require counties to send new ballots overseas by fax and receive them back from voters as faxes or as e-mail documents.
Pennsylvania election rules allow counties to send absentee ballots by fax to soldiers in war zones. That provision was used two years ago to reach members of the military stationed in Afghanistan. However, state rules do not allow for ballots to be returned via fax.
There is a good reason for that, said Gregory Dunlap, a deputy general counsel for Gov. Rendell. Pennsylvania's constitution guarantees the right to cast a ballot in secret, and many eyes would gaze on a fax sent to a county office, he said.
At one point, federal lawyers even suggested that Kane allow a scaled-down alternative, having counties send new ballots only to those service members who requested them.
In all, counties have sent about 26,700 absentee ballots to Pennsylvanians living abroad or serving in the military overseas. But it was unclear, even among top election officials, how many of these voters received ballots with Nader as a candidate.
Montgomery County sent 2,500 such ballots, Allegheny 1,300, and Philadelphia at least 2,300, testimony showed.
Philadelphia lawyer Mark Aronchick, a special election-law expert hired by the Rendell administration, called the number "a theoretically tiny universe of people."
County election officials testified that they would count Nader votes as write-in votes for him.
If the court required a new ballot, county election officials would be hard-pressed to comply, state lawyers argued. To do so, they would have to sacrifice time and resources needed to meet other demands, such as processing the crush of new voter-registration forms that this tight presidential contest has generated.
When overseas voters are weighed against that potential pool, "the scales don't even come close," Aronchick said.
Kane, a Clinton appointee who served as the state's top elections official for three years under Republican Gov. Tom Ridge, agreed. There was substantial evidence to suggest that the Justice Department alternatives "will harm the Pennsylvania election system and the public at large by undermining the integrity and efficiency of Pennsylvania's elections," she wrote.
A Justice Department spokesman said the agency had no comment last night on the possibility of an appeal.
|
|
|
| |
| Kerry presidency nightmare |
| 10.19.04 (11:34 pm) [edit] |
|
Think this is a stretch? Think again...
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7267" title="http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7267" target="_blank"http://www.spectator.org/dsp_...
Political Hay
The Kerry Nightmare |
|
By William Tucker |
Published 10/19/2004 12:09:28 AM
|
|
Last night I had the strangest dream. I guess it was a nightmare, really. I remember most of it, except how it ended.
First I dreamed Kerry won the election. That wasn't so bad in itself. He seemed Presidential enough for the job. He had a dignified bearing, spoke well, didn't mangle his phrases. People were weary after four years of uncertainty under George Bush and ready to try something new.
Kerry started off well. On January 22, in a burst of world optimism, he went to the U.N. and laid down his mea culpa. America had gone it alone too long, he said. We were ready to cooperate with the rest of the world. The General Assembly gave him a 15-minute standing ovation. His speech was cheered wildly in cities from Paris to Berlin to Peshawar. A new day had dawned. Peace was at hand.
The only concrete result that came out of his U.N. visit, however, was that Poland decided to accelerate its troop withdrawal, already scheduled for 2005. Other allies said that since Kerry was throwing in the towel, they were going to leave sooner than later as well. Everyone but Great Britain packed up and headed home. Meanwhile, Kerry visited France and Germany to hold long talks with President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder. The main outcome, however, was that they told him Iraq was his problem and wished him well. Meanwhile, terrorists in Iraq stepped up their operations
By the time President Kerry got back from Europe, things had taken a turn for the worse. Both Sunni and Shi'ite leaders announced that, despite the January election of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, both now regarded his victory as illegitimate. Democracy was a foreign system that America was trying to impose on the Muslim world. Both recommended a return to the Ummah, with religious leaders at the helm. Since each sect claimed to the rightful heirs of Mohammed, each claimed the right to the position.
The opposition became bolder. Several suicide bombers penetrated the Green Zone and American casualties started to rise. With our allies pulling out, our soldiers were also required to take over key positions in the South. Suddenly we found ourselves stretched way too thin. Rioting broke out in several cities of the Sunni Triangle.
All the pretty plans of the campaign were evaporating and President Kerry now found himself facing the basic contradiction of his position. Was Iraq the wrong war at the wrong place and the wrong time? Or were we actually undermanned? For two long weeks, Kerry mulled the problem while fierce debate was waged in Congress. Half of Kerry's constituency called for a pullout and peace demonstrations took place in New York and Washington. Many Democrats in Congress said our troops were endangered, however, and call for a draft.
Kerry solved the problem by going to the United Nations. A high level conference was arranged in Baghdad with all sides attending. A truce was called and for three weeks an international panel debated the issue. Finally, it was decided that 140,000 American troops would be given safe passage out of the country. They would leave in an orderly fashion and then Iraqis would continue to meet under U.N. supervision to decide how they would govern themselves.
Like the Indians watching the British march out of Fort William Henry, however, once the terrorists saw their enemies defeated they could not restrain themselves. Before the American soldiers had even begun to pack their bags, they were under daily attack. General fighting broke out in several cities, even as the U.N. panel continued to meet. Then a suicide bomber rammed the home of Prime Minister Allawi and killed him. The elected government collapsed. Civil war broke out between Sunni and Shi'ite militias, both claiming religious authority, while the Kurds withdrew completely, declaring their own state..
Like so many a President before him, John Kerry found himself at the mercy of events. All the pretty plans of his election campaign -- the diplomacy, the conferences with our allies -- were forgotten. Suddenly he was a commander-in-chief trying to rescue a stranded army.
Events didn't wait. Now convinced that America was abandoning the Middle East and no longer content to watch Iran develop a nuclear weapon that in two years would be able to hit Jerusalem, the Israelis sent a fleet of F-16s to drop bunker-busting weapons on three nuclear complexes at Bushehr, Natanz, and Arak. Rioting broke out in every Middle Eastern capital. Terrorists streamed into Baghdad from every direction. Syrian and Egyptian armies prepared for a retaliatory attack against Israel.
That's when I woke up.
I've been walking around in a cold sweat all day thinking about these things. But that's silly, I suppose. After all, it was only a dream. The American people couldn't possibly elect John Kerry President, could they?
William Tucker is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator and a contributing writer to the American Enterprise |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| I have officially made it in the blog universe |
| 10.19.04 (9:46 pm) [edit] |
|
http://deshanewsy.tblog.com/" title="http://deshanewsy.tblog.com/" target="_blank"http://deshanewsy.tblog.com/
I have officially arived. Is it the fact that I average around 600 visitors per day? No, there are many blogs out there who average more. Is it the fact that I have visitors from all over the globe? No, that's pretty normal for us in the blogworld. Is it because I stand firm for what I believe and don't move from that place like liberals do? No.
I have made it because I have someone (it's Checkitout, patriotgames, or whoever runs those blogs) who has made a mock deshanews blog! Awesome! Of course, just like Checkitout and unlike me, you can't comment on the idiotic statements that are made.
|
|
|
| |
| Great news for Kerry! Yasser endorses Johnny for President! |
| 10.19.04 (9:36 pm) [edit] |
|
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40988" title="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40988" target="_blank"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...
COUNTDOWN TO ELECTION DAY
Yasser Arafat endorses Kerry
Thinks Democratic senator 'better for Palestinian cause'
Posted: October 18, 2004
8:35 p.m. Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2004 WorldNe tDaily.com
Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat is hoping John Kerry wins the presidential election in November, several Palestinian leaders told WorldNetDaily.
Arafat deputy and chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat told WND in an exclusive interview that while "we do not involve ourselves in internal American politics," at the same time "our region has been sliding deeper and deeper into chaos because of certain policies over the past few years, and this needs to change."
While he would not directly endorse Kerry, it was clear Erekat was implying the PA wants a change in White House leadership: "If things continue the way they are, if certain policies toward our region are maintained in the years to come, there is going to be a lot of violence on both sides."
A prominent Arafat aide who asked that his name be withheld spoke to WorldNetDaily from Arafat's battered Ramallah compound.
"The president [Arafat] is frustrated with Bush's policies," he said. "The president [Arafat] thinks Kerry will be much better for the Palestinian cause and for the establishment of a Palestinian state."
Also today, PA Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath said the future of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is unsure if George W. Bush is re-elected to office, and he complained the U.S. presidential election was stalling the Middle East peace process.
"During an American election and the three months after, allies of the United States should do more work than they would do otherwise." Shaath told a news conference.
While the comments mark the first time the PA has endorsed Kerry on the record, it has not been a secret that Arafat is frustrated with Bush's leadership.
Israel Military Intelligence Chief Maj. Gen. Aharon Ze'evi has warned Arafat is biding his time until November, when the Palestinian leader hopes President Bush will be voted out of office and Ariel Sharon's coalition government will fall.
"Arafat is waiting for November in the hope George Bush will lose the election to John Kerry," Ze'evi told Army Radio in July. "He also hopes that the Israeli government will fall, so he can take center stage diplomatically."
Since 2002, Washington has fully backed Jerusalem's decision to isolate the Palestinian Authority president, who Sharon says is directly involved in planning terrorism and is an obstacle to peacemaking.
Many Israeli and American Jewish leaders have been expressing concern that a Kerry administration will cause more violence in the Middle East and could bring Arafat back to power. They say they are worried about Kerry's statements of coordinating American foreign policy with the Europeans, some of whom favor talks with Arafat, and are disturbed by Kerry's appointment of several former Clinton Mideast policy directors as advisers, particularly former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk.
Many blame Clinton's failed approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict –which sought Israeli territorial concessions for promises of peace by Arafat and ignored indications of growing Palestinian militancy and violations of security-reform agreements – for partially causing the current intifada.
Indyk, who helped devise the 1993 Oslo Accords, was a driving force behind Clinton's assessment of Arafat as a statesman and urged Clinton to accept Arafat as the legitimate ruler of the Palestinians. Under Indyk's advisory, Arafat visited the White House during the Clinton administration 24 times, more than any other world leader during those eight years.
If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.
|
|
|
| |
| Kerry: "The World wants Bush out of the White House" |
| 10.17.04 (7:45 pm) [edit] |
|
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_17-10-2004 _pg4_1" title="http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_17-10-2004 _pg4_1" target="_blank"http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/...
Kerry says that the world wants Bush out of office. He said that the world want's back the U.S. it used to know and love. A couple of things about this:
1. The U.S. the the world knew and loved under Clinton allowed terrorists to attack our country, allies and interests without worry of being hit back. The U.S. the the world supposedly knew and loved (This is a lie, those who hate us now have always held ill feelings towards us) is the U.S. that thought terrorism should be handled in the court system instead of like war or enemy combatants. The U.S. that everyone knew and loved left the building on Sept. 11th 2001. Unfortunately, for the world that used to know and love us, we had a President in office who was unafraid to strike back when 3,000 of our own were murdered.
2. Once again, Kerry has shown us what his foreign policy would be. This is another example of the Global test isn't it? Let's make sure that everyone loves us and make sure that others agree with our actions. Who cares whether or not we need to do something in order to protect us. Our security is secondary to what others think of us and our actions.
Voters, is this the man you want in the White House? One that cares what the French and Germans say above our national security?
|
|
|
| |
| DNC asking people to make up lies |
| 10.14.04 (11:29 pm) [edit] |
|
How completely expected. Democrats will do whatever it takes to win. The only way to make sure that they don't cheat is to blow them out. Bush will win this thing by at least 8 points because the American public will be able to see through this sort of fearmongering.
|
|
|
| |
| So what is going to happen now? |
| 10.13.04 (11:53 pm) [edit] |
|
It's pretty obvious to anyone who watched that Bush slaughtered Kerry in the third debate tonight. Anyone who wants to debate that fact is either a complete moron or just utterly out of touch. The question now is, how does this all play out? My prediction:
By the end of this next week, Bush will be back up by 5 - 6% in the polls. This will steadily rise throughout the rest of the month. Even with an October surprise put on by the Democrats, voters will see right past it. They have seen who is the best leader for this country, GW Bush. They have seen who has the best plan for the economy, the war on terror, education, and other social issues in this country. That person is GW Bush.
As far as the electoral college, I predict a huge victory for Bush. I predict that, no matter what kind of voter fraud Democrats are using right now, it won't matter. Bush will win by such a wide margin that he won't need Ohio and Florida to win (even though he will win both of those states anyway).
John Kerry is toast. I suppose he can go back to windsurfing and collecting a Senate paycheck.
|
|
|
| |
| Great Kerry Ads! |
| 10.13.04 (4:08 pm) [edit] |
|
NOW:
|
|
|
| |
| John Kerry: You say you don't believe Iraq had terrorist ties? |
| 10.12.04 (8:13 am) [edit] |
|
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200410 071005.asp" title="http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200410 071005.asp" target="_blank"http://www.nationalreview.com...
Kerry discussed "terrorist organizations" at an August 1, 1996, Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. He said, "These entities survive with country support, the support of the country of Syria, or country of Libya, or country of Iran, Iraq, and so forth."
 "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons [of mass death] and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so," Kerry told reporters on February 23, 1998. "That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis."
"The important thing is that Saddam Hussein and the world knows that we think Saddam Hussein is essentially out of synch with the times." Kerry said December 11, 2001 On Fox News's O'Reilly Factor. "He is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable."
"I still don't see the hammer that's going to convince him to open anything up," O'Reilly replied.
Kerry continued: "The hammer, ultimately, will be the evidence that we uncover as we go further down the trail that shows his support for terrorism and begins to build the coalition even more strongly."
"What are your thoughts on going on further than Afghanistan, all terrorist places?" Larry King asked Kerry. The senator replied: "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination," he said December 14, 2001 on CNN. "Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein."
Just before authorizing the Iraq war on October 9, 2002, Kerry referred to Saddam Hussein on the Senate floor: "He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel."
Democrats, and even a Clinton-appointed federal judge tying Saddam Hussein to Islamist terror.
During the fall 1992 campaign, Democratic vice-presidential nominee Al Gore chided Poppa Bush's administration for treading too lightly on Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi dictator, Gore said, "had already launched poison-gas attacks repeatedly, and Bush looked the other way. He had already conducted extensive terrorism activities, and Bush had looked the other way."
President Clinton addressed the nation on June 24, 1993. He said: "[T]here is compelling evidence that there was, in fact, a plot to assassinate former President Bush; and that this plot, which included the use of a powerful bomb made in Iraq, was directed and pursued by the Iraqi Intelligence Service." Clinton then lobbed 23 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles on IIS headquarters. "Therefore, we directed our action against the facility associated with Iraq's support of terrorism, while making every effort to minimize the loss of innocent life." The Kuwaiti trial of two Iraqi civilians, Wali al Ghazali and Raad Assadi, revealed that the IIS recruited them to position a Toyota Land Cruiser packed with 200 pounds of explosives near Poppa Bush during his April 1993 visit to Kuwait. Had that failed, the IIS also supplied a bomb-laced "suicide belt."
The late Les Aspin, Clinton's first Defense secretary, said of this plot: "The evidence is very conclusive that it was the work of the Iraqi Intelligence Service and is an action that would have had to have been approved by the highest levels of the Iraqi government."
Then-U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Madeleine Albright, showed the Security Council photos of the captured bombs. She said, "Certain aspects of these devices have been found only in devices linked to Iraq and not in devices used by any other terrorist groups."
In the spring of 1998, Clinton's Justice Department indicted Osama bin Laden for al Qaeda's attacks on U.S. interests. As the indictment read, "Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
As bin Laden's relationship with the Taliban showed some strains, the Washington Post published an Associated Press story on Valentine's Day 1999. It concluded: "The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against Western powers."
In April 2000, President Clinton's State Department issued the 1999 edition of "Patterns of Global Terrorism," a biennial overview. As it had since 1993, Team Clinton's inaugural year, State designated Iraq a state sponsor of terrorism. "Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999," the report concluded. Baghdad "continued to provide safe haven and support to various terrorist groups."
On June 2, 2002, CBS's 60 Minutes aired Lesley Stahl's interview with Abdul Rahman Yasin, the al Qaeda murderer who the Justice Department indicted for preparing the bomb that exploded beneath One World Trade Center in February 1993.
"The majority of the people who work in the World Trade Center are Jews," Yasin said, explaining why he and his comrades targeted the WTC. Stahl interviewed Yasin in Baghdad where he fled after the blast, which killed six individuals and wounded 1,042. Before presenting him to Stahl, Iraqi authorities claimed they jailed Yasin for the bombing.
However, according to Sheila MacVicar of ABC's defunct Day One program, Yasin was a free man. "Last week, Day One confirmed he [Yasin] is in Baghdad," MacVicar reported June 27, 1994. "Just a few days ago, he was seen at [his father's] house by ABC News. Neighbors told us Yasin comes and goes frequently." Iraqi intelligence documents discovered since Baghdad's liberation indicate that Yasin received government-funded housing and a monthly salary.
Importantly, papers like these, and the post-liberation arrests of terrorists in Iraq — such as the now-deceased Palestinian extremist Abu Abbas — have implicated Saddam Hussein even further since his defeat.
New York Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton declared on the Senate floor October 10, 2002, that Saddam Hussein gave "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members."
That same day, North Carolina Democrat John Edwards — who crowed in Tuesday's vice-presidential debate that Hussein's ties to al Qaeda were "tenuous, at best" — told the Senate, "Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists..."
The next day, Clinton and Edwards voted to authorize the Iraq war, as did John Kerry, back when he was for it, before he was against it.
In spring 2003, the survivors of George Eric Smith, 38, and Timothy Soulas, 35, both killed in the Twin Towers on September 11, sued Baathist Iraq, al Qaeda, and the Taliban in federal court for the murders of their loved ones. James Woolsey — a Carter-administration Navy undersecretary and former Clinton-appointed director of Central Intelligence — and Laurie Mylroie, an Iraq-policy adviser to the 1992 Clinton campaign, both offered sworn testimony on Saddam Hussein's involvement in terrorist financing and training.
"I believe it is definitely more likely than not that some degree of common effort in the sense of aiding or abetting or conspiracy was involved here between Iraq and the al-Qaeda," Woolsey said under oath on March 3, 2003. Clinton's CIA chief from 1993 to 1995 added: "Even if one cannot show that...any of the individual 19 hijackers were trained at Salman Pak, the nature of the training and the circumstances suggest, to my mind, at least, some kind of common aiding, abetting, assistance, cooperation — whatever word you might want to take."
Mylroie, a former Naval War College associate professor, testified: "It took a state like Iraq to carry out an attack as really sophisticated, massive and deadly as what happened on September 11."
While Saddam Hussein did not respond to this suit, Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. was persuaded by this and other evidence, including satellite photos of Salman Pak, a suspected terrorist training camp 15 miles outside Baghdad.
"I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, 'by evidence satisfactory to the court,' that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda," Baer announced May 7, 2003, in Manhattan. He then awarded the plaintiffs $104 million in Baathist funds.
That day, CBSNews.com posted the following headline: "Court Rules: Al Qaida, Iraq Linked."
Want to keep saying that the 9/11 report said there were no connections between Iraq and terrorism? You are a liar Kerry...
As William Kristol has noted, the summer 2004 reports of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 Commission both concluded that Hussein's regime and al Qaeda were, in fact, in communication. However, both documents deny a formal, Hussein-bin Laden treaty-type alliance.
Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report (Conclusion 95, page 347): "The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment on safe haven — that al-Qaida or associated operatives were present in Baghdad and in northeastern Iraq in an area under Kurdish control — was reasonable."
The 9/11 Commission Report (page 61): "With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request." However, "the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections."
The 9/11 Commission Report (page 66): "In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, [Ayman al] Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis."
|
|
|
| |
| Kerry and Edwards show no feelings toward Afgan citizens |
| 10.11.04 (10:07 pm) [edit] |
|
So, as the world celebrated the fact that Afganistan just had elections for the first time in their history, John I and John II did exactly the opposite. Did you hear them yesterday on the Sunday shows? How pathetic.
On Tim Russert's program and Lester Holt's program, John Edwards showed to talk politics. In both instances, Edwards was asked to comment on the elections in Afganistan. In both instances, Edwards refused to show any delight, any relief, any kindness, any joy whatsoever, for the Afgan people. All he could talk about were the bad things happening there. All he could say was that 75% of the world's Opium is currently produced in Afganistan. All he could talk about were negative things that are plaguing the country.
When good things happen in our country or in the world, it is bad news for Democrats/liberals like John and John. You will never hear them say anything positive. If you do, it will be followed by "but". Isn't it pathetic to be tied to failure like Kerry and Edwards are? What must it be like to run solely on the hope that things go wrong? Any of you liberals out there who say I'm full of it on this or that say I'm wrong need to prove it to me. Prove to me an instance in which Kerry or Edwards praised something as good recently without adding the "but" to the end of the sentence. Prove to me an instance in which good things happening in our country and world are good for Kerry and Edwards' political futures.
I dare you...
|
|
|
| |
| CBS, NBC cash goes to the Democrats |
| 10.11.04 (9:56 pm) [edit] |
|
Isn't it pathetic that this is not a surprise at all? We all know that the networks are amazingly biased and left falling (they are so much more than left leaning,,they are falling down).
I find it extremely humorous that liberals complain about Fox News constantly when Fox News is the only network that even resembles something that is balanced.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40862" title="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40862" target="_blank"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...
COUNTDOWN TO ELECTION DAY
CBS, NBC cash goes
to Democrats
While look at Fox News employees sees more balanced giving
Posted: October 11, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNe tDaily.com
Employees of CBS and NBC have given overwhelmingly more money in political contributions to Democrats and left-wing organizations than to Republicans, public data reveal.
Those donors tied to the Fox News Channel appeared to demonstrate the networks "Fair and Balanced" slogan to a greater extent, although the company's employees also gave considerably more money to Democrats.
According to information on the website opensecrets.com, 2004 election cycle donations from employees of CBS – which has been embroiled in a scandal over the use of fake National Guard documents to call President Bush's service into question – went to the DNC Services Corp., presidential candidates Dennis Kucinich, John Kerry and Richard Gephardt, and Senate candidates Barabara Boxer and Barack Obama, among others. Of over $111,000 given by network employees, just two $1,000 contributions went to President Bush's re-election campaign.
NBC's records were similar. Employees of the network spread their money a bit wider, including gifts to Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn. The list of employees included producers, attorneys on-air hosts, writers and executives. NBC's contributions totaled $146,585, none of which went to Bush.
Totaling $25,383, a search of Fox News' contributions turned up donations to Bush and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, along with contributions to Howard Dean and the left-wing Emily's List. Kerry, Gephardt and Wesley Clark also showed up on the list. Of the $25,383 total, $4,930 went to Republicans candidates or committees.
A political action committee run by Fox chief Rupert Murdoch called News America Holdings also raked in some cash from cable network employees.
Data gleaned from network and major newspaper personnel has long shown that media employees favor Democratic candidates and causes.
|
|
|
| |
| The Right Nation |
| 10.10.04 (12:25 pm) [edit] |
|
The Right Nation
George Will
October 10, 2004
WASHINGTON -- If by the dawn's early light of Nov. 3 George W. Bush stands victorious, seven of 10 presidential elections will have been won by Southern Californians and Texans, all Republicans. The other three were won by Democrats -- a Georgian and an Arkansan.
This rise of the Sun Belt is both a cause and a consequence of conservatism's rise, which began in 1964 with, paradoxically, the landslide loss of the second post-Civil War major-party presidential nominee from that region -- Arizona's Barry Goldwater, four years after the first, Richard Nixon. His campaign was the first stirring of a mass movement: Nixon's 1960 campaign attracted 50,000 individual contributors; Goldwater's attracted 650,000.
Conservatism's 40-year climb to dominance receives an examination worthy of its complexity in ``The Right Nation,'' the best political book in years. Its British authors, John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge of The Economist, demonstrate that conservative power derives from two sources -- its congruence with American values, especially the nation's anomalous religiosity, and the elaborate infrastructure of think tanks and other institutions that stresses that congruence.
Liberals, now tardily trying to replicate that infrastructure, thought they did not need it because they had academia and the major media. But the former marginalized itself with its silliness, and the latter have been marginalized by their insularity and by competitors born of new technologies.
Liberals complacently believed that the phrase ``conservative thinker'' was an oxymoron. For years -- generations, really -- the prestige of the liberal label was such that Herbert Hoover called himself a ``true liberal'' and Dwight Eisenhower said that cutting federal spending on education would offend ``every liberal -- including me.''
Liberalism's apogee came with Lyndon Johnson, who while campaigning against Goldwater proclaimed, ``We're in favor of a lot of things and we're against mighty few.'' Johnson's landslide win produced a ruinous opportunity -- a large liberal majority in Congress, and incontinent legislating. Forty years later, only one-third of Democrats call themselves liberal, whereas two-thirds of Republicans call themselves conservative. Which explains this Micklethwait and Wooldridge observation on the Clinton presidency:
``Left-wing America was given the answer to all its prayers -- the most talented politician in a generation, a long period of peace and prosperity, and a series of Republican blunders -- and the agenda was still set by the right. Clinton's big achievements -- welfare reform, a balanced budget, a booming stock market and cutting 350,000 people from the federal payroll -- would have delighted Ronald Reagan. Whenever Clinton veered to the left -- over gays in the military, over health care -- he was slapped down.''
Micklethwait and Wooldridge endorse Sir Lewis Namier's doctrine: ``What matters most about political ideas is the underlying emotions, the music to which ideas are a mere libretto, often of very inferior quality.'' The emotions underlying conservatism's long rise include a visceral individualism with religious roots and anti-statist consequences.
Europe, post-religious and statist, is puzzled -- and alarmed -- by a nation where grace is said at half the family dinner tables. But religiosity, say Micklethwait and Wooldridge, ``predisposes Americans to see the world in terms of individual virtue rather than in terms of the vast social forces that so preoccupy Europeans.'' And: ``The percentage of Americans who believe that success is determined by forces outside their control has fallen from 41 percent in 1988 to 32 percent today; by contrast, the percentage of Germans who believe it has risen from 59 percent in 1991 to 68 percent today.'' In America, conservatives much more than liberals reject the presumption of individual vulnerability and incompetence that gives rise to liberal statism.
Conservatism rose in the aftermath of Johnson's Great Society, but skepticism about government is in the nation's genetic code. Micklethwait and Wooldridge note that in September 1935, during the Depression, Gallup polling found that twice as many Americans said FDR's administration was spending too much than said it was spending the right amount, and barely one person in 10 said it was spending too little.
After FDR's 1936 re-election, half of all Democrats polled said they wanted FDR's second term to be more conservative. Only 19 percent wanted it more liberal. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan won while excoriating ``big government,'' America had lower taxes, a smaller deficit as a percentage of GDP and a less-enveloping welfare state than any other industrialized Western nation.
America, say Micklethwait and Wooldridge, is among the oldest countries in the sense that it has one of the oldest constitutional regimes. Yet it is ``the only developed country in the world never to have had a left-wing government.'' And given the country's broad and deep conservatism, it will not soon.
©2004 Washington Post Writers Group
|
|
|
| |
| Wow, this will piss off liberals |
| 10.10.04 (12:13 pm) [edit] |
|
|
|
| |
| Soros and UN pushing for global gun ban |
| 10.10.04 (12:08 pm) [edit] |
|
Folks, this is huge. Do you see what the U.N. and liberals are trying to do. They are moving closer to asking for a worldwide policing organization that has control over everyone. Do you want U.N. troops patroling your city or state or country? Do you want to be subjected to the political whims of Old Europe? Vote for Kerry if this is what you want.
This is scary.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/1 0/83928.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/1 0/83928.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...
"Peters is such an anti-gun zealot that she even argues that police should be disarmed. "When police begin to carry guns, that motivates criminals to carry guns," she complained recently, according to LaPierre."
"Things will be different if Bush loses in November, warned LaPierre, especially given John Kerry's long record of opposition to second amendment rights.
"Can you imagine if President Kerry appoints the U.S. delegation to that conference - what we're going to end up with?" he said."
|
|
|
| |
| George Bush bashed Kerry tonight |
| 10.08.04 (10:27 pm) [edit] |
|
Ok, so this debate is almost over and Kerry is answering in the last question. Bush SMACKED Kerry tonight. I don't care what polls afterward say, I don't care what media pundits try and tell me, I don't care what liberal wackos on this board, Bush showed tonight why he is the President and why he should be the President for the next four years.
Bush, instead of being defensive tonight, attacked Kerry. He attacked his lies, he attacked his record and did a great job at that. So let the spin begin. There really is only one way for the spin to really be believed. Bush SMACKED Kerry on every subject tonight.
PERIOD.
----------------
Come to the new Deshanews message board! http://excoboard.com/exco/index.php?boardid=7754" title="http://excoboard.com/exco/index.php?boardid=7754" target="_blank"http://excoboard.com/exco/ind...
|
|
|
| |
| The Tora Bora Bull |
| 10.08.04 (9:38 pm) [edit] |
|
Don't forget to sign up and chat on the new Deshanews message board! http://excoboard.com/exco/index.php?boardid=7754" title="http://excoboard.com/exco/index.php?boardid=7754" target="_blank"http://excoboard.com/exco/ind...
--------------------
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/ rl20041008.shtml" title="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/ rl20041008.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.townhall.com/colum...
Tora Bora bull
Rich Lowry (archive)
October 8, 2004 |  Print |  Send
When we had Osama bin Laden, we let him walk away. That is the criticism that John Kerry and John Edwards have repeatedly leveled at the Bush administration, with -- amazingly -- not one word of rebuttal from President Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney during the first two debates.
The charge has to do with the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, when al-Qaida and Taliban die-hards were making a last stand in the Tora Bora redoubt in the White Mountains along the border with Pakistan. Kerry alleges that bin Laden was there and was allowed to escape by the kind of Afghan proxy forces that the United States had relied on throughout its Afghan campaign.
This line of attack gains power only with serious oversimplification. Kerry said in the first debate, "We had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora." Kerry doesn't know that. Some intelligence indeed suggests that bin Laden was there. But the U.S. commander on the ground, Gen. Tommy Franks, also had reports that bin Laden was in Kashmir, in southern Baluchistan and northwest of Khandahar near a lake.
Kerry also said, "We didn't use American forces." That is false. The United States expended massive amounts of ordnance at Tora Bora, both laser-guided bombs and the devastating fire of AC-130 gunships. Video feeds from Predator drone planes provided real-time intelligence. American Special Forces troops were present on the ground, if in small numbers.
They weren't there in force on the basis of a strategic choice that Kerry supported. The United States wanted to avoid the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. We could have flooded Afghanistan with roughly 150,000 troops like the Soviets, but at the risk of causing a nationalist reaction. So, the United States instead used Special Forces troops, precision-guided bombs and indigenous forces.
At the time, Kerry was all for it. He told an interviewer in late 2001 that the United States could avoid making Afghanistan into another Vietnam, "as long as we make smart decisions, and we don't go in and repeat what the British or the Russians tried to do. And I don't think we will; I think we're on a different footing." In mid-December 2001, right in the middle of the battle of Tora Bora, he supported the administration's strategy: "I think we have been smart. I think the administration leadership has done it well, and we are right on track." Kerry only cautioned against using too much force: "I am not for a prolonged bombing campaign," he said.
Of course, every strategic choice has its trade-offs. At Tora Bora, the local troops entered into surrender negotiations that let enemy fighters escape. Some critics suggest that the United States, instead of relying on Pakistani forces to catch al-Qaida escaping to Pakistan, should have done that job itself. But putting U.S. forces into Pakistan could have had the significant cost of destabilizing the relatively moderate government of President Pervez Musharraf.
Kerry warned about exactly this possibility. As the Afghan campaign got under way, The Boston Globe reported: "Kerry, the son of a foreign diplomat, said the greater challenge is managing Muslim unrest in neighboring Pakistan. ... 'My judgment is people who think that Pakistan itself will be easily manageable are really misjudging the public sentiment there,' Kerry said."
At the time, Kerry even weighed in sympathetically on the battle of Tora Bora. On Jan. 20, 2002, Kerry said on CNN: "I do think some people have asked some questions about how that particular component of the mission sort of played out. But the fact is that it is a difficult place. He is elusive. I think they are doing the maximum amount right now possible to try to track him down."
Kerry now says there's no way he would have missed the opportunity the United States had at Tora Bora. What he said three years ago argues otherwise. This controversy is only more evidence that what the senator will never miss is an opportunity to be opportunistic.
Rich Lowry is editor of National Review, a Townhall.com member group, and author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years.
|
|
|
| |
| Send Kerry and Edwards to Iraq |
| 10.08.04 (8:56 am) [edit] |
October 08, 2004, 8:33 a.m.
90% Baloney
Kerry-Edwards lie about casualty numbers in Iraq.
In the first debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry, Kerry said again and again that Americans are suffering 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq, and that American taxpayers are paying 90 percent of the costs. In the vice-presidential debates, Sen. John Edwards said the same thing. It would be a tremendously effective line in proving Kerry's point that we "pushed our allies aside" and went to war unthinking and unprepared. It would be a tremendously effective line if it were true, that is.
But like so much else in the Democrats' relentless attack on the war, it is — in the immortal words of M*A*S*H's Col. Sherman Potter — "horse hockey." A senior administration source filled me in on the real numbers. This does not diminish the enormous sacrifice represented by each and every one of those Americans who have given their lives in this war; it only shows how low the Dems will go to make a political point. The real numbers tell a very different story than the line Kerry and Edwards are peddling. From the beginning of the war in March 2003 through October 2, 2004, about 800 American troops had been killed in action (another 260 died of non-combat causes). In that same period, about 750 Iraqis and 120 Coalition soldiers were killed in action. The math just doesn't work for Kerry-Edwards. It's 48 percent, not 90 percent. And the percentage is decreasing. If you count the number of combat dead from May 2003 to October 2004, Americans are 700 out of about 1540 total (which includes the 750 Iraqi and 90 Coalition casualties), or 45 percent. From September 1, 2003, to October 2, 2004, Americans constitute 43 percent of combat deaths (600 Americans, 700 Iraqis, and 80 Coalition KIA). All these numbers are gruesome; none is pleasant to contemplate. But none of them — from beginning to end — amounts to the bill of goods Kerry-Edwards are selling. Vice President Cheney shot some of these numbers back at John Edwards on Tuesday night, and didn't end with the casualty numbers. He said, "The allies have stepped forward and agreed to reduce and forgive Iraqi debt to the tune of nearly $80 billion, by one estimate. That plus $14 billion they've promised in terms of direct aid puts the overall allied contribution financially at about $95 billion," which Cheney said amounted to more than 40 percent. But even the vice president didn't include the amount the Iraqis have contributed themselves, which my source said was about $20 billion. Whatever the figures add up to (my source's estimate was that America was putting in only about 35 percent), they clearly add up to one fact: The Kerry-Edwards line about America's paying 90 percent of the bill is — like their casualty figures — baloney. The abuse of the casualty figures is above and beyond outrageous. Kerry and Edwards are twisting them around to make the point that President Bush took us to war without a sufficient number of allies to share the butcher's bill. It's not sufficient to say, as some talk-radio hosts have, that we lost more than 1,000 men on some single days in World War II and Korea. Saying that plays into the Dems' despicable theme. It's not enough to say, as Dick Cheney did to John Edwards, that it's beyond the pale to ignore the sacrifice of the Iraqis, the Brits, the Aussies, and others who have died there. A few of my friends, while on active duty, have had the terrible task of visiting the homes of soldiers killed in action to notify their families. Were it possible, I would sentence both Kerry and Edwards to that task, not just here but in Iraq and in the Coalition nations. Perhaps by being compelled to do that duty, they wouldn't be so anxious to use those deaths to score political points. Maybe just sending them to Iraq would be enough. According to the same administration source, 233 members of Congress have visited the troops in Iraq so far. One hundred ninety-one were House members: 121 Republicans, and 70 Democrats. Forty-two were senators: 24 Republicans and 18 Dems. Eight senators have made two trips, and one has made three. Neither Kerry nor Edwards has taken time away from manicures, hairstyling appointments, and campaign stops to talk to the men and women who are putting their lives on the line in Iraq and to see the facts on the ground. That's leadership for you.
— NRO contributor Jed Babbin is the author of Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think. -------------------- Come and register at the Deshanews message board! http://excoboard.com/exco/index.php?boardid=7754" title="http://excoboard.com/exco/index.php?boardid=7754" target="_blank"http://excoboard.com/exco/ind... |
|
|
| |
| Who is the AP working for? |
| 10.08.04 (8:43 am) [edit] |
|
The AP is the most corrupt news organization in the world right now. Worse than the New York Times, Worse than the LA Times, Worse or at least on par with CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN.
The AP is basically a service meant for relaying what the Democratic Party wants the public to know. The spin, lies and distortions are amazing. There needs to be a major FCC investigation into the way the AP does business and there needs to be some sort of independent investigation into whether or not the AP and the DNC conspire and work together.
There is absolutely no wonder that so many now days come to the internet and read blogs, drudge and Fox News for the real news because so many of the original news outlets are so left leaning that they don't really try and hide it anymore.
It's pathetic, just pathetic.
------------------------- ----
Come and spout off at the Deshanews message boards! http://excoboard.com/exco/index.php?boardid=7754" title="http://excoboard.com/exco/index.php?boardid=7754" target="_blank"http://excoboard.com/exco/ind...
|
|
|
| |
| Fatherhood |
| 10.07.04 (3:19 pm) [edit] |
|
I remember, before we had our little girl, thinking and saying outloud that there was absolutely no way I would watch our baby actually be delivered. I would stay in the room and be supportive of my wife, but no way would I actually watch her come out into the world. I'd seen enough of that stuff on T.V. to know that the only thing to come from that would be me fainting from the sight.
Well, fast forward to that morning. My wife had been in labor for a long time and she had been pushing for almost 4 hours. I was mentally drained and I can only imagine what how she was feeling. All of a sudden the doctor said "here she comes, it's almost time!" He asked if I wanted to see, and without hesitating, I said yes. I wanted to see my little girl, the one I had waited for all my life, come into the world. All of those thoughts and feelings regarding this moment were completely erased with the chance to see the most perfect thing I had ever had a hand in making. Proud? Absolutely.
That is what fatherhood does to you. You do things for that child and for the mother of that child, that you would never in your wildest dreams even think of doing. You will automatically pray more, you will say I love you more, you will be more forgiving, more understanding, more loving, more helpful, more nuturing, more careful, more intelligent and much more ignorant that any time before. I sit and read to her and absolutely love it. We aren't reading mysteries, spy novels or history, we are reading That's not my puppy!. Not only are we reading it, we are reading it 10 times a night and loving it every single time.
Fatherhood makes you appreciate even the most common things. I wake up looking for her smile. I go and watch her taking a nap just because. My favorite time of the day is bathtime because she enjoys it so much.
Fatherhood has made me appreciate my wife much more as well. You see, she has always done most of the work around the house, it's just that I really didn't notice it (unfortunately) until now. Not only that, but it is like she has done this before even though she hasn't.
How lucky could one man be? My baby is 4 months old now and it seems that time has already flown by. Every day is an adventure that I anticipate excitedly.
Fatherhood is a gift from God and something that I hope everyone is eventually blessed with.
|
|
|
| |
| Kerry finally admits... |
| 10.07.04 (8:32 am) [edit] |
|
Well, well, well... Now Kerry is saying that one of his main goals in Iraq is hopeless and won't happen.
He has continuously said that he would bring others, those who opposed our going into Iraq, together to help with the fight in Iraq. Well, no he has finally conceded that this won't happen. So, tell me John, what is your plan for Iraq? You don't have one.
John Kerry is a pathetic candidate for President. He has presented ZERO real plans for doing anything in this country. He has no plans, he can't use his experience in the Senate as proof he is a viable candidate because he has done nothing substantial, he can't use his four months of service in Vietnam because there have been so many inconsistant stories coming out of his camp that no one knows what is true and what isn't.
The only thing John Kerry can do is lie about the Bush administration's record, lie about his own and cover up the fact that he has no plan whatsoever for Iraq or national security, no plan for the economy, no plan for education, no plan for health care, no plan period.
TWO STUNNING BITS OF NEWS ABOUT KERRY [10/06 06:10 PM] Stunning news about Kerry Part One: Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry conceded yesterday that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute troops to Iraq if he is elected president.
The Massachusetts senator has made broadening the coalition trying to stabilize Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign, but at a town hall meeting yesterday, he said he knows other countries won't trade their soldiers' lives for those of U.S. troops.
"Does that mean allies are going to trade their young for our young in body bags? I know they are not. I know that," he said.
Asked about that statement later, Mr. Kerry said, "When I was referring to that, I was really talking about Germany and France and some of the countries that had been most restrained."
"Other countries are obviously more willing to accept responsibilities," he added, as he took questions from reporters in a school yard in Tipton, Iowa...
Even before Mr. Kerry made his admission, France and Germany had made it clear that their absolute opposition to sending troops to Iraq was not a political calculation involving the U.S. election.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has categorically ruled out sending any soldiers, even to protect U.N. officials overseeing new elections, adding that "that's where it's going to remain." French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said his government will not send troops "either now or later." Stunning news about Kerry Part Two: Kerry took the day off today to prepare for his debate. We're in the final month, and he's not even making one appearance on the trail today? Not one fundraising dinner? Not taping a commercial? No interview with Imus? Senator, if I have to work covering your campaign, why aren't you?
|
|
|
| |
| Teresa: "Vote often and vote well" |
| 10.07.04 (8:19 am) [edit] |
|
This goes right into what the Democrats strategy is for winning in November. This plays right into the fact that Democrats are registering dead people, registering people in multiple locations, etc..
The Democratic Party, the party of massive and unreported voter fraud.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/6 /144607.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/6 /144607.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...
Teresa Urges Democrats to 'Vote Often'
"Vote early and vote often" has long been the Democrat establishment's slogan. Now, as the party cranks up its election fraud machine more zealously than ever before, Teresa Heinz Kerry has a slight update:
"Vote often and vote well."
That's what the aspiring first lady said during a recent appearance in Minneapolis. When readers first alerted us, we found the claims too outrageous to believe, but we tracked down her quotation in the liberal St. Paul Pioneer Press.
There is one positive aspect to the appallingly cynical comment: At least she didn't say it in a Chicago cemetery.
|
|
|
| |
| How Clinton covered up the destruction of TWA flight 800 |
| 10.07.04 (8:13 am) [edit] |
|
Where are the headlines in the newspapers stating "Clinton knew!"?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40798" title="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40798" target="_blank"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...
TWA Flight 800: Attacked, destroyed, covered-up
Posted: October 7, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Editor's note: In his extraordinary new DVD documentary, "Mega Fix," Emmy-award-winning filmmaker Jack Cashill traces the roots of Sept. 11 to the political exploitation of terror investigations by the Clinton White House in the desperate 1995-1996 election cycle. This 8-part series began in Oklahoma City and today moves to the coast of Long Island.
The "Mega Fix" DVD is available now at WorldNetDaily's online store.
© 2004 WorldNe tDaily.com
On July 17, 1996 – Liberation Day in Saddam's Iraq and two days before the Atlanta Olympics – at least 270 people see streaking objects zigzagging off the horizon and culminating in the destruction of TWA Flight 800 off the south coast of Long Island.
At the time of the crash, Richard Clarke is serving as chairman of the Coordinating Security Group on terrorism. Within 30 minutes of the plane's crash, Clarke tells us, he convenes a meeting of the CSG in the White House situation room.
"The FAA," Clarke reports, is "at a total loss for an explanation. The flight path and the cockpit communications were normal. The aircraft climbed to 17,000 feet, then there was no aircraft."
In fact, the Federal Aviation Administration does have an explanation. Its radar operators in New York saw on their screens an unknown object "merging" with TWA 800 in the seconds before the crash and rushed the radar data to Washington. For reasons that will become clear later, Clarke also deceives the reader about the altitude of TWA 800. The last altitude the FAA actually recorded was about 13,700 feet. This is easily verified and beyond debate.
And remember the concept of planes as bombs, Ramzi Yousef and the Bojinka-related plot? President Clinton, in fact, reviews these plans in the summer of 1996, after TWA Flight 800 has been destroyed. U.S. Air Force Col. Buzz Patterson, who carried the "nuclear football" for the president, relates in his book, "Dereliction of Duty," that he was returning a daily intelligence update from the president's desk to the National Security Council when he notices the heading "Operation Bojinka." He keys on a reference to "a plot to use commercial airliners as weapons." As a pilot, he has a keen interest in the same.
Beyond doubt, Clinton is aware of the potential use of planes as bombs in the summer of 1996, but he does nothing about it. Patterson also tentatively identifies Deputy National Security Adviser and political consigliore Sandy Berger as the one person holed up on the night of July 17 with Clinton in the family quarters. No document could be more damaging to the Clinton legacy than Clinton's handwritten notes on Bojinka and related plans. Pilfering these might be worth the risk of getting caught.
August 1996
About four weeks after the crash, based on his own rough timeline, Richard Clarke visits the site of the TWA 800 investigation on Long Island. There he casually stops to talk to a technician, who shares with Clarke the astounding fact that, despite all evidence to the contrary, an exploding fuel tank destroyed TWA Flight 800.
That same day, Clarke tells us he returns to Washington and breathlessly shares his exploding fuel tank theory with Chief of Staff Leon Panetta and NSA Director Tony Lake, even sketching the 747 design.
"Does the NTSB agree with you?" Lake asks Clarke.
"Not yet," says Clarke. In one chance stroll through the hangar, the amateur Clarke discovers something the National Transportation Safety Board has not yet discovered itself.
Clarke then adds the telling comment: "We were all cautiously encouraged." They are "encouraged" because the political people do not want to face the consequences of terrorism. It could derail their cakewalk to re-election.
At this same time in the investigation, however, the FBI is ignoring the politics. Its agents are telling the New York Times that explosive residue has been found throughout the plane and especially along the right wing. Plus, the FBI's Washington lab has identified the residue as PETN, a component of either missiles or bombs. The same Times article calls the finding "a serious blow to the already remote possibility that a mechanical accident caused the crash."
Something has to give, and it's the FBI. On Aug. 22, future 9-11 commissioner Jamie Gorelick – as the Clintons' deputy attorney general she was also field commander at Oklahoma City – summons the FBI's Jim Kallstrom to Washington for a Come-to-Jesus meeting.
Kallstrom has been a good soldier the past five weeks. He's kept all talk of eyewitnesses and satellites and radar and missiles out of the news. But the evidence has led him to a terrorist scenario of some sort, and there's no easy way to turn back.
No account of the meeting provides any more than routine detail, but behaviors begin to change immediately, especially after the New York Times breaks a headline story the next day, top right, above the fold – "Prime Evidence Found That Device Exploded in Cabin of Flight 800." This article steals the thunder from Clinton's election-driven approval of welfare reform in that same day's paper and threatens to undermine the whole peace and prosperity mantra of the Democratic convention just days away.
From this point on, the administration spends all its energies making Clarke's exploding fuel tank theory stick. When the FBI is forced to change its story, so does the New York Times. And America lets its guard down once more.
|
|
|
| |
| CBS worried that investigation results will affect election |
| 10.05.04 (11:55 pm) [edit] |
|
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentN ews&" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=entertainmentN ews&" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...;storyID=6421162
I'm just speechless. So, let me get this straight....CBS is going to wait to reveal results of the investigation of fake memos until after the election because they don't want to interfere with the election??
CBS had no problem with releasing memos that they didn't investigate fully that would affect the election if they were true. They had no problem defending these memos and this investigation into Bush's service in the Guard even though it may affect the election. Now that they have done this and there are many many Democrats suspected in this action, they are deciding not to release the results until after the election.
You tell me what stinks about this and why we Conservatives always complain about the left wing media bias.
|
|
|
| |
| Kerry losing blacks' support |
| 10.05.04 (11:49 pm) [edit] |
|
Riddle me this...If Al Gore got close to 90% of the black vote in the last election and the election was as close as it was, how can Kerry possibly win with only 73% this time around?
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041005-013 035-9704r.htm" title="http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041005-013 035-9704r.htm" target="_blank"http://washingtontimes.com/na...
Kerry losing blacks' support
By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry has seen a 10 percent decline in his support among black voters in the past month that has forced him to devote more campaign resources to energize one of his party's most loyal constituencies.
" Kerry continues to hold a big lead among African-Americans," but his "advantage is narrower than it was last month," Pew Research Center said in a national poll.
P ew said that in a head-to-head matchup with President Bush, Mr. Kerry's support among black voters has fallen from 83 percent in August to 73 percent now, while Mr. Bush's black support has doubled, from 6 percent to 12 percent.
A l Gore captured 90 percent of the black vote in 2000; Mr. Bush received 8 percent.
K erry campaign supporters say his erosion of support among blacks was no cause for concern and that he will win overwhelming support from blacks on Election Day.
B ut the senator from Massachusetts last week added the Rev. Jesse Jackson to his campaign staff as a senior adviser, and his campaign sent out black congressional surrogates to major urban centers in battleground states in the Midwest, where his poll numbers have slipped in the past month.
" Kerry is underperforming. He is not performing at a rate that he needs in order to win. [Black voters are] clearly a target going into the final weeks of this campaign," said Donna Brazile, who managed the Gore campaign in 2000.
" I would not worry about the so-called erosion, because in the end, [the black vote] is going to come back," said Miss Brazile, who is widely considered her party's best strategist for black turnout.
M r. Kerry yesterday participated in a "religious summit meeting" with Mr. Jackson and 300 black religious leaders in Philadelphia. He also will address black voters on Thursday in a prime-time interview special on Black Entertainment Television.
C onservative black leaders said the decline in black support for Mr. Kerry just four weeks before the election sends a strong signal that enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate among blacks had deteriorated.
" John Kerry should be doing much better among African-Americans at this juncture, given that African-Americans are a critical segment of the Democratic Party's base," said Alvin Williams, president of Black America's Political Action Committee (BAMPAC), a conservative PAC that gives money to conservative political candidates.
P olling this summer by BAMPAC and by other black organizations found that younger blacks are registering in larger numbers as independents instead of as Democrats, and that there has been a small but noticeable increase in Republican registration among blacks.
A poll conducted in 2000 by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a think tank that studies issues of interest to blacks, found that 74 percent of blacks identified themselves as Democrats, a figure that fell to 63 percent in 2002. An additional 20 percent of black voters now call themselves independents, while 10 percent identify with the Republican Party.
M r. Kerry has addressed all of the major black organizations this year, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Urban League and the Congressional Black Caucus, receiving an enthusiastic reception. But during his 20-year career in the Senate, Mr. Kerry has not had a particularly close relationship with the black community and sometimes has been at odds with the community, especially on the issue of affirmative action.
I n a speech at Yale in 1992, the senator from Massachusetts said affirmative-action programs had "opened doors" for minorities, but that it was also an "inherently limited and divisive program" that "kept Americans thinking in racial terms."
E arlier this year, Mr. Kerry gave a group of black columnists the names of black leaders with whom he talks on a regular basis, including Princeton professor Cornel West, a leading black intellectual. But Mr. West since has called Mr. Kerry "milquetoast and mediocre" and "ambivalent" toward blacks. He told National Public Radio earlier this year that he did not "know anybody at all who's close to John Kerry."
|
|
|
| |
| Cheney vs. Edwards |
| 10.05.04 (11:44 pm) [edit] |
|
Listen, you all know who I think won. Cheney totally dominated an obviously green political smurf tonight. How any liberal can say that Edwards won this debate is beyond me.
What tonight did was show major differences between the two campaigns.
--Kerry/Edwards believe that Iraq was a bad war and Iraq would be better off if we had never gone in and Bush/Cheney believe that Iraq, the U.S. and the world are better off without Saddam in power.
--Tonight pointed out the fact that Kerry/Edwards have been almost completely absent from their government jobs over the last 3 years while Bush/Cheney have been fighting the war on terror and running the country.
--Tonight we saw that great hair does not make a great man or a great leader. What makes a great leader is something that Kerry/Edwards lack. That something is integrity. That something is an unwaivering standing what what you believe. That something is a knowledge of how goverment actually works. Kerry in 20 years in the Senate and Edwards in 4 have proven that you can be in a job and not actually work.
This debate proved that the Kerry campaign does not have the leadership to run a country, much less a country during war time. We have a President who has stopped attacks on our country during the war on terror, we have a President who actually takes the war on terror seriously unlike democrats who only see it as a political tool. We have a President that is unwaivering in his support of the troops and unwaivering in his belief that the United States is the greatest country in the world.
In John Kerry and John Edwards, we have to absentee Senators who have one thing in mind. Not the security of America, not capturing terrorists, not making our economy stronger, not making perscription drugs less expensive, not school choice, not freedom of speech, not freedom of religion, not prosperity for all, and not the betterment of every single American family. No, they have one thing in mind and that is power. The Democratic party right now is in a position that pits them versus the national interests of the country they want to lead. If things go wrong, they have a chance to gain power. Who in their right mind would ever want to put themselves in that position?
Tonights debate proved to myself and countless others that the Republican ticket is the ticket of freedom, the ticket of promise and the ticket of purpose.
|
|
|
| |
| Wow, so do these parents understand who exactly is President right now? |
| 10.04.04 (4:13 pm) [edit] |
|
Just amazing. They do understand that the President of the Unites, for the last 4 years, has been Bush don't they? If you have a bulletin board with pictures of Presidents on it, why would there be a problem with putting Bush on it? Who in their right mind would think that suggesting the teacher put Kerry up there as well is a good or smart idea?
I would say that I'm shocked, but I'm not shocked anymore with anything that liberals do. They will do anything they can to get what they want. They will even try and pretend that Bush isn't President.
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/WABC_100304 _middleschoolteacher.html" title="http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/WABC_100304 _middleschoolteacher.html" target="_blank"http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/n...
Parents expressing outrage after a teacher is kicked out of her public school for hanging a picture of President Bush next to pictures of other presidents in her classroom.
Still Images from the Story
Shiba Pillai-Diaz, Teacher: "It happened on a small bulletin board near the American flag and also with a poster of the Declaration of Independence."
|
|
|
| |
| Meanwhile, back in Florida: Democrats engaging in massive voter fraud |
| 10.04.04 (8:36 am) [edit] |
|
Disgusting...this is the candidate you support Democrats? Or does the end justify the means?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/2 /183158.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/2 /183158.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...
Saturday, Oct. 2, 2004 6:27 p.m. EDT
Pro-Democrat Vote Fraud Probed in Florida
Hundreds of Republican voters have been disenfranchised in Florida as part of a Democrats-only voter registration drive sponsored by a national civil rights group, according to new allegations that are at the center of an investigation by the state's Election Division and the U.S. Justice Department.
A field director for ACORN, one of the many pro-Democratic Party organizations trying to register new voters in the state, has told investigators that efforts to rig votes for the 2004 election were "routine," according to the newspaper Florida Today.
"There was a lot of fraud committed," said Mac Stuart, former Miami-Dade field director for ACORN. Among his allegations: that ACORN "quality control" workers routinely kicked back Republican voter registrations while paying for Democratic ones, using the excuse that "they had enough" new voters for the GOP.
Stuart said the "boxes" of Republican voter registration cards were tossed while "thousands of invalid voter registration cards" were submitted in their place.
The former ACORN director said his group "eagerly sought" to register convicted felons, even though they're not allowed to vote under Florida law. He recalled setting up registration tables outside the Miami police department and Dade County jail.
"We targeted them because ACORN had a goal: 103,000 new registrations from Dade County," Stuart told Florida Today.
|
|
|
| |
| Which candidate is better suited to lead us in times of war? Ask the military |
| 10.04.04 (8:32 am) [edit] |
|
I suppose morons like deviant1 and flipside will tell us that military personel have no idea what they are talking about and are too stupid to make up their own minds. They will tell you that Kerry is better and that military personel have been brain washed. They may just tell you that their point of view doesn't really matter.
Of course, they may just do what they always do...ignore what they say because it doesn't help push their cause. What is their cause you ask? No one really knows..we do know that their cause has nothing to do with the security of our country and the spread of our way of life. To them, our way of life is wrong.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/4 /00219.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/4 /00219.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...
Monday, Oct. 4, 2004 12:00 a.m. EDT
Military Rejects Kerry by Staggering Margin
By a staggering margin of 4 to 1, U.S. military personnel have rejected the presidential candidacy of Sen. John Kerry, a new survey by Army Times magazine shows.
With 4,000 full-time and part-time troops responding, a full 73 percent said they would vote for President Bush if the election were held today, reports USA Today, a sister publication of Army Times.
Just 18 percent said they would vote for Kerry, who has based his candidacy on the four months he spent as a Swift Boat commander in Vietnam 35 years ago.
Two-thirds of those responding said John Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned from the war, when he teamed up with "Hanoi Jane" Fonda and trashed his fellow soldiers as "war criminals" and "monsters," made them less likely to vote for him.
The survey was conducted Sept. 15-28 by the Army Times Publishing Co., which sent e-mails to more than 31,000 subscribers. The magazine received 4,165 responses on a secure Web site.
|
|
|
| |
| Kerry's Iran Stance: It's all about the cash |
| 10.04.04 (8:23 am) [edit] |
|
Kerry is a crook. What is it about Democrats and fundraising scandals? Do they not know how to go about raising money in legal or ethical ways?
Speaking of scandals. There are still at least two out there that the DNC and the mainstream press have swept under the rug. These two scandals have yet to be solved and are still being investigated:
-- The CBS memogate. The Democrats fingerprints are all over this thing. Joe Lockhart and John Kerry are in hot water in regards to this.
-- Sandy Berger stealing files and paperwork on Bush's Guard service. Last I checked, this was still being investigated. Something stinks about this as well. Of course, I'm sure nothing will really be anounced until after the elections...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40744" title="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40744" target="_blank"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...
COUNTDOWN TO ELECTION DAY
Money trail behind
Kerry's Iran stance
Candidate has financial ties to backers of mullah regime
Posted: October 3, 2004
10:25 p.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNe tDaily.com
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kerry's call for providing Iran with the nuclear fuel it seeks, even while the regime is believed to be only months away from developing nuclear weapons, is being linked to his campaign contributions from backers of the mullah government in Tehran.
During last Thursday's nationally televised debate between the Democratic presidential candidate and President Bush, Kerry insisted as president he would provide Tehran with the nuclear fuel it wants for a pledge to use it for peaceful purposes only.
SPONSORED LINKS |
|
Distance Learning Directory - Online Degrees
Bachelor, Master and Post-Grad degrees online from accredited colleges and universities. Business, Education, IT, Healthcare, more. Browse by degree or program. Request info and get started today.
www.classesusa.com
Health Insurance for the Self-Employed!
Affordable health, dental, and life insurance for you and your family. Ideal for self-employed, small business owners. Fill out our form for a competitive quote.
www.healthinsurancesavings.com |
|
"I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes," Kerry said in a critique of the Bush administration's handling of Tehran's nuclear program, which the Iranians claim is only for civilian purposes.
The comments came in response to a question about whether diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the "nuclear problems" with North Korea and Iran.
"If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together," Kerry said of Tehran. "The president did nothing."
Among Kerry's top fund-raisers are three Iranian-Americans who have been pushing for dramatic changes in U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Most prominent among them is Hassan Nemazee, 54, an investment banker based in New York. Nominated to become U.S. ambassador to Argentina by President Clinton in 1999, Nemazee eventually withdrew his nomination after a former partner raised allegations of business improprieties, WND previously reported.
Nemazee was a major Clinton donor, giving $80,000 to the Democratic National Committee during the 1996 election cycle and attending at least one of the famous White House fund-raising coffees.
In 2001, at the invitation of Mobil Oil Chairman Lucio Noto, whom he counts as a "personal friend," Nemazee joined the board of the American-Iranian Council, a U.S. lobbying group that consistently has supported lifting U.S. sanctions on Iran and accommodating the Tehran regime.
The Kerry camp has identified Nemazee as having raised more than $100,000 for the senator's campaign, WND reported last spring.
A Nemazee friend in Silicon Valley, Faraj Aalaei, has raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for the Kerry campaign. Aalaei has worked in the telecommunications industry for 22 years and is the chief executive officer of Centillium Communications, a publicly traded company.
Last year, Aalaei married a 35-year-old recent immigrant from Iran named Susan Akbarpour, whom the Kerry campaign also lists as having raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for the campaign.
In just six years since coming to the United States on a tourist visa from Iran, Akbarpour has started a newspaper, a magazine and, most recently, a trade association whose goal is to get sanctions lifted and promote U.S. business and investment in Iran.
Most odd about the support from Akbarpour, writes Kenneth Timmerman in this month's issue of the American Spectator, is that she claimed political asylum from the Iranian regime when she came to this country.
Meanwhile, Kerry has embraced the entire political agenda of Akbarpour and other wealthy Iranian-Americans embracing Tehran. Those positions include:
- ending the fingerprinting of Iranian visitors to the U.S.;
- expanding "family reunion" visas to allow extended family members of Iranians living in the U.S. to immigrate here legally and in large numbers;
- offering a "dialogue" with the hard-line, terrorist-supporting clerics in Tehran;
- help Iran join the World Trade Organization.
The stunning remarks by Kerry were initially reported only by WorldNetDaily, and some analysts suggested the statements were misunderstood, taken out of context or simply a verbal gaffe by the candidate.
However, the same policy of accommodation toward Iran's nuclear aspirations is clearly outlined on Kerry's campaign website as well.
Under the heading "Prevent Iran From Developing Nuclear Weapons," the Kerry campaign makes the same point emphatically – that the U.S. should still give or sell the nuclear fuel Iran wants in exchange for a promise not to build nuclear weapons.
"A nuclear armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and our allies in the region," the campaign policy statement reads. "While we have been preoccupied in Iraq, Iran has reportedly been moving ahead with its nuclear program. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and leave the negotiations to the Europeans. It is critical that we work with our allies to resolve these issues and lead a global effort to prevent Iran from obtaining the technology necessary to build nuclear weapons. Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear. Under the current circumstances, John Kerry believes we should support the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) efforts to discern the full extent of Iran's nuclear program, while pushing Iran to agree to a verifiable and permanent suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing programs. If this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for action."
However, according to the latest intelligence reports, Iran has decided at the highest levels of government to build its nuclear weapons program within the next four months. Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has urged his country's weapons developers to step up work on making a nuclear bomb, a U.S. official said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.
Citing an authoritative source in the Iranian exile community, the official said Khamenei met recently with senior government and military leaders regarding the nuclear weapons program.
Khamenei told the gathering, "We must have two bombs ready to go in January or you are not Muslims," the official said.
Tehran has said the recent International Atomic Energy Agency resolution calling on Iran to halt uranium enrichment could lead to the country's withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Officials of the Kerry campaign were unavailable this weekend.
In addition to the nuclear weapons threat, Iran test-fired a Shihab-3 medium-range ballistic missile, capable of reaching Israel, Sept. 18 and also in August. The missile is reportedly capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
During the debate, Bush said he wants to continue to work with the foreign ministers of France, Germany and Great Britain to "convince the Iranian mullahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions."
Responding to Kerry, Bush noted the U.S. already has sanctioned Iran.
"We can't sanction them any more," he said. "There are sanctions in place on Iran."
Israel has said it wants to await the outcome of international pressure on Iran before it considers a pre-emptive military strike on reactors as it did in 1981 in Iraq.
At another point in the debate, Kerry also said he wants to end research on bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons, which presumably could take out an Iranian reactor if his sanctions are ineffective.
Kerry said it "doesn't make sense" for Bush to be pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons when the U.S. is trying to tell countries, such as North Korea, to disarm.
"You talk about mixed messages," he said. "We're telling other people, 'You can't have nuclear weapons, but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.'"
"Not this president," Kerry said. "I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation."
|
|
|
| |
| No words will do this picture justice... |
| 10.04.04 (8:11 am) [edit] |
|
|
|
|
| |
| The Kerry doctrine |
| 10.02.04 (9:06 pm) [edit] |
|
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...;u=/nm/20041002/pl_nm/cam paign_bush_dc
Kerry said in the debate that the United States had the right to take preemptive action abroad if it "passes the global test, where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."
Kerry also said he would not cede to others the right to take preemptive action "in any way necessary to protect the United States of America."
Bush called it the "Kerry doctrine."
"He said that America has to pass a global test before we can use troops to defend ourselves," Bush said.
Kerry let it slip out during the debate. He would rather ask other countries before defending our nation. This is an example of a time when it doesn't matter what others think. When your countries national security is in question, I want a President who thinks of us before he thinks of the feelings of France and Germany.
Of course, that could be just me.
|
|
|
| |
| Kerry actually said we should have given nuclear fuel to Iran |
| 10.02.04 (10:01 am) [edit] |
|
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40734" title="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40734" target="_blank"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...
"I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes," Kerry said in a critique of the Bush administration's handling of Tehran's nuclear program, which the Iranians claim is only for civilian purposes.
"If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together," Kerry said of Tehran. "The president did nothing."
One of the things that has been glossed over after this supposed win for Kerry in the debate was the fact that he said Iran should have been given nuclear fuel for weapons. This goes right along with what democrats and liberals have believed for some time...that you can trust dictators and murderers. Our former Sec. of State stated that the US had been tricked by North Korea. Why? Because we trusted their word. How can you trust the word of a liar? Kerry said we should have continued with more sanctions on Saddam instead of going to war. So he thinks we could have trusted that even more sanctions would make Saddam someone we can trust? Now Kerry says we should trust Iran, give them nuclear fuel and then follow up later? This man clearly believes that we can trust those who have proven to be untrustable.
That is the scariest thing.
|
|
|
| |
| Fun political pictures |
| 10.01.04 (9:55 pm) [edit] |
|
Kids, when she is gone, I will show talk to you about the birds and the bees.
The French salute.
Clinton involved in one of those "summits" Kerry talked about in the debate.
|
|
|
| |
| Toonces for President |
| 10.01.04 (9:36 pm) [edit] |
|
Look out guys, there's a new top dog (or cat) in town.
Meet Ciaro, the next President of the United States of America. Cia is the principled feline who will look out for your interests, not the interests of industries and lobbies like big catnip, big yarnballs and big milk.
Ciaro may not have a detailed plan to get U.S. Troops out of Iraq, but he does have a great plan to catch birds in the yard and rid you of those pesky rodents in your basement. Cia also has laid out his plan for bringing together both friends and enemies across the circle of life that is the animal kingdom. Cia's enemies may call him the "french looking kitty candidate" but that couldn't be further from the truth as he is a lifelong resident of the Greater Austin Animal Shelter.
If you are uncertain who you believe should be the one to lead our country through these times of great uncertainty, give Ciaro a look. Remember, when you are looking for a powerful candidate, nothing is more powerful than kitty power.
Thank you.
This message has been brought to you by the Whisker group. He is Ciaro and he has approved this message.
|
|
|
| |
| CBS, where the truth is irrelevant |
| 10.01.04 (6:34 pm) [edit] |
|
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" title="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank"http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,134210,00.html
The latest from the Political Grapevine:
CBS Producer: Truth Irrelevant
CBS (search) is defending its story on Beverly Cocco of Philadelphia, whom CBS said was an ordinary parent, "petrified" that her sons could be forced into the military after receiving mass e-mails saying a draft was pending. CBS failed to mention that the Selective Service has declared it has no plans to conduct a draft, that those e-mails were debunked long ago, and that Ms. Cocco heads a group called "Parents Against the Draft."
Well, CBS correspondent Richard Schlesinger, who reported the piece, insists that rumors of a draft, "[have] gotten people all riled up" and "Whether or not there's any reality to [them] is almost besides the point." Schlesinger's producer goes even further, telling the blog INDC Journal, "the truth of the [mass] e-mails were absolutely irrelevant."
P.S. Vote for me at http://simelections.tblog.com" title="http://simelections.tblog.com" target="_blank"http://simelections.tblog.com... :)
|
|
|
| |
| Interesting...Focus group gives only "slight edge" to Kerry in debate |
| 10.01.04 (8:15 am) [edit] |
|
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...;u=/nm/20041001/pl_nm/cam paign_voters_dc
Very interesting. See, as many of you already know, I thought Kerry did very well in the debate. I don't think it was enough to give the election to him as he needed something amazing to happen in order to really swing things his way.
If voters though, around the country, didn't feel like Kerry hit a "home run", he is in trouble yet again. Was Kerry possibly too "slick" with his answers? Did they sound too rehearsed to many Americans? Did Bush seem more real and honest to people?
For Kerry's sake, he has quite a bit of spinning to do if this is the case.
|
|
|
| |
|
http://www.blogrank.net/cgi-bin/blogs/rankem.cgi?id=deshanew
|
