America is Back! Terminate the Terrorists! Economic Girlie Men! Brilliant.

I want a Schwarzenegger-Giuliani ticket in '08.



Let me tell you about the sacrifice and commitment I've seen firsthand. In one of the military hospitals I visited, I met a young guy who was in bad shape. He'd lost a leg had a hole in his stomach, his shoulder had been shot through.

I could tell there was no way he could ever return to combat. But when I asked him, "When do you think you'll get out of the hospital?" He said, "sir, in three weeks." And do you know what he said to me then? He said he was going to get a new leg, and get some therapy, and then he was going back to Iraq to serve alongside his buddies! He grinned at me and said, "Arnold, I'll be back!"

Ladies and gentlemen, America is back! Back from the attack on our homeland, back from the attack on our economy, back from the attack on our way of life.

This is what they did after Sharon announced plans for a more rapid pullout from Gaza.

AT LEAST 12 KILLED IN TWIN BUS BOMBINGS IN BE'ER SHEVA

Dollars to donuts that these guys crossed into Israel from a place where the "apartheid wall" is not yet finished.

And there could have been more.

Hooray! The NY Times prints a piece on one of the benefits of the new Iraq, brought to you by George W. Bush.

Long Stifled, Iraqis Make Most of Chance to Vent on Talk Radio

Of course, based on the article you would imagine that people have a lot of complaints about the current situation...

Most calls are about the nuts and bolts of life. Many public services have not recovered since the American occupation began more than a year ago. Daily power failures persist. Piles of trash are heaped on city streets. In poorer areas, leaky sewage pipes taint water supplies.

However, I think the bigger story is reported somewhat lower down...

One such program was broadcast June 30, the day before Mr. Hussein first appeared in court. The program director and host, Majid Salim, asked listeners what they wanted to see happen to him. The answer was something of a surprise for Mr. Salim.

"Most people wanted him executed," Mr. Salim said.

Another time, he asked listeners what they thought about the insurgency that has roiled Iraq, claiming most of the energies of the new interim government of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and putting the American occupation in danger of failure.

"We asked them, is it terrorism or is it resistance," he said. "A very large proportion, almost 100 percent, said terrorism. They did not like it."

This article is further proof that those in our liberal media who call the "insurgents" anything other "terrorists" is pushing their own agenda based on the assumption that we are imperialist agressors who have done nothing positive for the Iraqi people.

A simple point made by a member of Protest Warriors regarding the symbolic carrying of coffins during the huge anti-Bush rally a few days ago.

The leftist group 1000 coffins, brought up the tail end of the protest....The coffins symbolized the soldiers who died in Iraq. For some reason, they were not carrying coffins to symbolize all the people who died on 9/11 in WTC, nor do they carry coffins to symbolize the hundreds of thousands who were killed by the Hussein regime. But then again, they probably don't have enough members to carry that many coffins.

First a made up claim of an anti-Semitic attack and now this?

Jewish man arrested over arson at Paris Jewish centre

Police headquarters refused to identify the man taken into custody in connection with the August 22 attack, but investigators said the man had worked on occasion as a guard at the center, but that management wanted to fire him.

Investigators suggested that "resentment" over the loss of his job could have motivated the suspect, in his 50s, to torch the eastern Paris center out of revenge, but that explanation was not confirmed.

Once again, I figured I'd take a stab at trying to read one of the more popular left-wing bloggers without getting my blood pressure up.

So much for that...

Pentagon/Israel Spying Case Expands - Fomenting a War on Iran

It is an echo of the one-two punch secretly planned by the pro-Likud faction in the Department of Defense. First, Iraq would be taken out by the United States, and then Iran. David Wurmser, a key member of the group, also wanted Syria included. These pro-Likud intellectuals concluded that 9/11 would give them carte blanche to use the Pentagon as Israel's Gurkha regiment, fighting elective wars on behalf of Tel Aviv (not wars that really needed to be fought, but wars that the Likud coalition thought it would be nice to see fought so as to increase Israel's ability to annex land and act aggressively, especially if someone else's boys did the dying).

Thanks, Juan Cole for reminding me why I need to vote for Bush/Cheney. I feel sick to my stomach that the vast majority of my co-religinists want to put the people in power who will give voice to opinion makers like this. People like Pat Buchanan, as much as he thinks the same, was never so direct and has been practically stripped of any power in the Republican party.

The "Bush Lied" crowd and their leaders (Kerry/Edwards) have gotten so mixed up that if Bush says it's going to rain and then the sun comes out they'd be upset. How do I know? Here is John Edwards speaking about Iraq:

"After months of saying he'd done everything right on Iraq and foreign policy, the president acknowledged just the other day that he miscalculated the way in which he waged the war in Iraq. He believes that he may have won the war too quickly and that was a miscalculation," Edwards added.

So he thinks it would have better had the war been prolonged? I guess it's possible in their mind since the things they complain about most (e.g., looting of museums and prison abuses) happened after the war against Iraqi forces was over.

The Bush-Cheney folks (not a 527) have put together a history of videoclips of John Kerry expounding on Saddam Hussein and Iraq. My favorite part is when he describes, in 1998, how he is ahead of the rest of his colleagues, and the country in general, in wanting to force Saddam Hussein from power.

Kerry on Iraq

And the theme song from "Flipper" of course.

Just a brief note of congratulations to all my Argentine in-laws as Argentina wins gold medals in both basketball and soccer. This from a country about one tenth the size of the U.S. and a lot poorer too.

Felicitaciones Argentina!

I could have sworn that my local paper asked for reader submissions on what they would say if they were President Bush accepting his party's nomination (in 350 words or less). I thought the best were to be printed last Sunday, but I didn't see any. Then I thought that perhaps I misunderstood and they meant this Sunday, right before the convention. In any case, since I wasn't contacted, I guess my submission won't be in the paper.

However, given my first amendment rights and the miracle of blogging, I will post it here.

President Bush's (Abbreviated) Acceptance Speech by GBAM:

Thank you for your support and thanks for all you’ve done for this great country. You may consider voting for me in November, but the truth is you will be voting for all of us, for a stronger economy and for freedom.

When I took the oath of office in January 2001, our economy was losing jobs and heading into recession. Overseas, our enemies were growing increasingly bold in their attacks against our country and the worst was yet to come.

How did Americans respond to these initial challenges of the 21st Century? First, we turned this economy around by taking less of your money in taxes. Motivated business owners then found ways to create new jobs resulting in three years of uninterrupted economic growth. The average unemployment rate since I took office is lower than at any time since the 1960’s, and continues to drop. Inflation and interest rates are near forty-year lows. Home ownership, an essential ingredient in the American dream, is at record highs.

Now let’s look back at what we’ve accomplished overseas; things that seemed unimaginable only a few years ago. Afghanistan is a free country. Ninety percent of Afghani men and women have registered to vote. In Iraq, millions are now free from the iron grip of a mass murderer and are preparing for democratic rule. Libya has given up its arms program. A new generation in the Middle East is being born with all the opportunities granted to it by freedom and liberty. Hope has returned to the birthplace of civilization.

I am determined that the American people keep moving forward as well, urged on by the dreams of those that have sacrificed so much. Those who have passed the torch of freedom and prosperity on to both their loved ones and to people they will never know. Because of them, our children will be safer, freer and more prosperous than we ourselves dare to imagine. Their dreams are our dreams. And our dreams will come true.

God Bless All of You and God Bless the United States of America.

Via LGF, a little known example of "I voted for it before I voted against it" from John Kerry.

Kerry's stances on Cuba open to attack

Then, reaching back eight years to one of the more significant efforts to toughen sanctions on the communist island, Kerry volunteered: ``And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him.''

It seemed the correct answer in a year in which Democratic strategists think they can make a play for at least a portion of the important Cuban-American vote -- as they did in 1996 when more than three in 10 backed President Clinton's reelection after he signed the sanctions measure written by Sen. Jesse Helms and Rep. Dan Burton.

There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it.

Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier.

If presidents weren't limited to two terms, the Boston convention would
have seen a familiar face at the podium, accepting his fourth nomination. I'm
Bill Clinton, and I'm reporting for booty! - James Lileks in Jewsish World Review

File this one under - "Is there no safe place...?"

Lithuanian Jew Attacked By Palestinian Near Berlin Museum

The 21-year-old Lithuanian, who was wearing a kippa head covering, told police that he was confronted on Wednesday by the Palestinian, who told him that "Jews have to be killed". The aggressor then hit him in the abdomen.

The 19-year-old suspect, who was known to police, was placed under arrest.

Known for what? Attacking Jews?

This is DEFINITELY not good for the Jews - if it's true.

Pentagon Official Is Suspected of Giving Israel Secrets

The espionage investigation has focused on an official who works in the office of Douglas Feith, the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, officials who have been briefed about the investigation said on Friday. The F.B.I. has gathered evidence that the Pentagon official passed classified policy documents to officials at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a major pro-Israeli lobbying group, who in turn provided the information to Israeli intelligence, the officials said.

I give a decent amount of money to AIPAC, but that would stop immediately if they were invovled in anything like this.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee also denied any wrongdoing. The organization said in a statement: "Any allegation of criminal conduct by the organization or its employees is baseless and false." The group added, "We are fully cooperating with the governmental authorities and will continue to do so."

I certainly hope so.

If Republicans were Democrats, they'd be screaming "timing!". Why relaease this now when the investigation is a year old? (Remember Sandy Berger and pantsgate?) I hope the Republicans don't do that.

Which of the interviewers in the Presidential Debates will ask straight out to President Bush - "What do you make of the fact that John Kerry has misled Americans about his military service in Vietnam?"

Plot thickens after checking records

But the official records on Kerry's Web site only add to the confusion. The DD214 form, an official Defense Department document summarizing Kerry's military career posted on johnkerry.com, includes a "Silver Star with combat V."

But according to a U.S. Navy spokesman, "Kerry's record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a 'combat V' to anyone for a Silver Star."

Naval regulations do not allow for the use of a "combat V" for the Silver Star, the third-highest decoration the Navy awards. None of the other services has ever granted a Silver Star "combat V," either.

It's a shame we can't actually ask to see his medals/ribbons since he threw them away. Or were they someone else's that he threw away. Is anyone sure about anything that this man's ever done?

Watch Hatikvah played in Athens at Gal Fridman's gold medal ceremony here. Cool. Thanks to Israellycool.

This also from a related AP story:

After crossing the finish line, Fridman pumped his fist, took a victory dip and then wrapped himself in an Israeli flag when he emerged from the water. Later, he promised to take his gold medal to the memorial in Tel Aviv for the 11 Israeli athletes and coaches killed after being seized by a Palestinian terrorist group at the 1972 Munich Games.

Whenever I think of Israel and Greece, I think of my aunt. She married an Israeli about 35 years ago when it seemed like the everyone in the world thought all young Israeli soldiers were cool. At least in my world they were. My aunt and uncle honeymooned in Greece and as a little boy I was fascinated by those old color Polaroids. What a different world that was.

My uncle always joked with me that I was a soft American. He used to always tease me that while I went to college to study and party, he had been a sergeant in the army having to kill people who were trying to kill him. (That's the cleaned up version)!

Sabras are the only ones who can give me a bigger guilt complex than my own mother can. Must be why I married one - although to be fair she left Israel when she was three years old :-)

That was a nice break from politics - now where did I put my copy of the Tommy Franks biography.....

The following is based on an idea I read somewhere on a right-wing website that even I hesitate to link to:

In 1971, John Kerry was anti-war and claimed that young men were being killed for no reason and committing war atrocities directed by those up and down the chain of command. So if George W. Bush came to him as a young man in 1972 and asked whether he should go to the war, serve in the National Guard or go to Canada, what would Kerry have said?

And by the way, what exactly was he saying at the time to other young men with that option?

Didn't Bush do exactly what a supposedly patriotic, yet anti-war Kerry would have wanted other young men to do? Bush had a much different war to opt into or out of 3-4 years after Kerry's Vietnam.

The Bush Team does the legwork that the Media doesn't seem interested in reporting.

FACT SHEET: Top 10 Connections Between John Kerry And 527s

Once again, this isn't about right or wrong - just hypocrisy. Meanwhile, Republican campaign workers (paid and unpaid) who have even spoken with 527 organizers (which is not illegal) have resigned their positions and the Democrats go on with business as usual.
-------------------------------------
How much more lying and flipping will Kerry supporters stand before they decide not to bother to go to the polls? If what I read on the right-wing blogs and my own feelings are any indication, Bush voters are definitely starting to get upset at the idea that Kerry could even be a legitimate presidential candidate, much in the same way that Democrats think that Bush stole the election.

"The Bush campaign and its allies have turned to the tactics of fear and smear..." - John Kerry, August 24

Fear and smear indeed.

Kerry says Bush policies encouraged terrorist recruitment

Kerry says Bush ignores 'average folks'

Kerry says Bush has left U.S. vulnerable to attack

Kerry says Bush uses surrogates to do 'dirty work'

More proof that John Kerry is a hypocrite of Olympic proportions.

John Kerry wants to deny the right of the SwiftBoat veterans to ask him questions about his service record. That's right - deny. Threatening TV stations to pull their ads, suing to stop them because they are supposedly linked to the Bush campaign, etc. That is censorship, not simply disagreement.

Thanks to Drudge, we now have a reminder that the Kerry campaign ran it's own SwiftBoat style campaign against President Bush in an official press release.

Key Unanswered Questions: Bush's Record In The National Guard

I'll give Kerry credit if he has the balls to keep this press release up on his website.

Whatever you believe about duplicitous tactics, it is a fact that President Bush has called John Kerry's service noble and courageous and has never personally questioned it, as John Kerry has of Bush's service.

Also, even if you thought the SwiftBoat campaign was somehow illegal - what gives the Kerry camp the right to complain about attacks on his record generally when he has personally questioned Bush's honor and integrity? Aren't Bush's honorable discharge papers as valid as Kerry's medal citations?

This is not about whether someone served or didn't, or whether they told the truth about that service or not. This is about the ultimate hypocrisy being foisted on the American people by the Kerry campaign and supported by the Democratic National Committee as a whole.

UPDATE: Just to underline the hypocrisy, here comes a fresh steaming pile - Kerry Condemns Ad Attacking Bush Service.

"Those of us who were in the military wonder how it is that someone who is supposedly serving on active duty...can miss a whole year of service without even explaining where it went," said [Senator John] Kerry.

Kerry Pans Bush's Guard Service - "The issue here is, as I have heard it raised, is was he present and active in Alabama at the time he was supposed to be," said Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran. "I don't have the answer to that question and just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question."

Although I consider reading much of the mainstream media oulets to be "getting the other side" of political stories, I decided I would try to get an even deeper understanding by reading some left-wing blogs, like Daily Kos.

The first post I arrived at suggests that the Republicans put pressure on someone to get ABC to broadcast a halftime report from the convention during Monday Night Football, anchored by Peter Jennings.

The complaint is then made that, "ABC didn't offer any special "live convention reports" during the Obama speech at the Democratic convention."

I'm not sure if this was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek as I don't know enough about the blog to know it's tone. Also, like someone stumbling across LGF for the first time, I am trying to separate the owner from the comment section where the real conspiracy theorists live.

Here are several reasons why this isn't just wrong, it's ridiculous.

First of all, no one outside of Illinois had ever heard of Obama until his speech at the Democratic convention and I imagine that most Americans polled today still would not know who he is (although he gave an excellent speech). The article quoted by Kos even says straight out that the schedule was not announced for non-principals. Meanwhile, the scheduled speaker for around halftime for the Republicans are John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, both who are well-known nationally. I would also find it hard to imagine that political junkies of any stripe will not be interested in Rudy's 9/11 related comments.

Secondly, pre-season Monday Night Football is not the Super Bowl. If the Republicans were looking for ratings, they are going to the wrong place. The competition that night includes Everybody Loves Raymond and CSI:Miami on CBS which are both Top 10 shows.

Thirdly, 70 percent of the MNF audience is male, where Bush already has a strong lead.

Fourthly, the game is between Tennessee and Dallas, so most of the interest will be in Texas and the South where, again, Bush already has a strong lead.

Fifthly (is that a word?), if I wanted to pick a network or cable anchorman to be the one guy to give a special report from my convention, Peter Jennings would not be him.

I was hoping to get some political thought from Daily Kos, but instead I got conspiracy theory. Better luck next time.

Maybe this has been the case for awhile, but ever since Michelle Malkin took a beating on Chris Matthews' Hardball, I've noticed that MSNBC has become increasingly partisan. (In case you missed it, Matthews tried to make Malkin say that Kerry shot himself on purpose when all she said was that one of his Vietnam wounds may have been self-inflicted.)

Take this headline from their website - Bush calls for halt to Swift Boat veterans’ ads. Actually there are two links to the same story. The second reads - Bush: Vets should halt anti-Kerry ads

That's not what he said at all! He said that ALL 527 ads should be taken off the air, whether from the right or the left. Just reading this headline on the top page leads you to believe that he wants the ads off the air because their false - why else would he only call for the removal of those specific ads. Indirectly, it also accuses him of limiting free speech which is exactly what the Democrats are up to.

This b.s. comes from the side of the aisle that praises Michael Moore up and down and invites him to their convention to sit with ex-President Carter. A man (Moore) who called Bush a deserter and a "fictitious President".

This is where I draw the line - you can debate the President's service or Kerry's service, but to claim that President Bush is directing the Swiftboat Veterans campaign and then calling on him to stop the ads as if he were running them himself is disgusting. Especially when you know the charges of collusion can't be proven before the election. And this from a party that set the media on a feeding frenzy to prove that Bush didn't complete his service as if HIS records of an honorable discharge were insufficient. There is so much hypocrisy here I want to throw up.

The scum of the Earth are just drooling at the chance of a Kerry win.

"The North Koreans made it very clear, politely, that they want Mr. Kerry to win the election," said Kenneth Quinones, a former U.S. diplomat who was in Pyongyang this month for a Korean studies conference.

SEOUL North Korea called President George W. Bush an imbecile and a tyrant who puts Hitler in the shade, unleashing a stream of insults Monday that seemed to rule out any serious progress on nuclear disarmament talks before the American elections in November.

Didn't former Vice-President Al Gore say something like that in a speech given at Columbia University?

"The Administration works closely with a network of "rapid response" digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for "undermining support for our troops."

And you know what - Kerry didn't serve honorably. He was still an officer in the service when he testified to Congress about the military's supposed official policy of committing war atrocities while tens (or hundreds) of thousands of soldiers were in harm's way. Reports of atrocities that were later proved false. A real hero might have said, "you know what, Purple Hearts and all I haven't been hurt bad - I'm going back in".

By the way, neither the President nor anyone in his administration is orchestrating this blog. Just becuase I donated to his campaign doesn't mean I'm connected to Bush any more than donating to UNICEF makes me connected to the UN Oil-For-Food program in Iraq.

Rant over.

This - Bush Urges End to Attack Ads by Outside Groups on All Sides - is news? Lead article on the NY Times website news?

Helllllooooooooo! Anybody home at the Times? Eleven days ago, President Bush said on Larry King Live:

G. BUSH: Well, I say they ought to get rid of all those 527s, independent expenditures that have flooded the airwaves. There have been millions of dollars spent up until this point in time. I signed a law that I thought would get rid of those, and I called on the senator to -- let's just get anybody who feels like they got to run to not do so.

KING: Do you condemn the statements made about his...

G. BUSH: Well, I haven't seen the ad, but what I do condemn is these unregulated, soft-money expenditures by very wealthy people, and they've said some bad things about me. I guess they're saying bad things about him. And what I think we ought to do is not have them on the air. I think there ought to be full disclosure. The campaign funding law I signed I thought was going to get rid of that. But evidently the Federal Election Commission had a different view.

What's worse is that the article starts off with this -

President Bush, who has refused for weeks to condemn a veterans' group's television commercials attacking John Kerry's military service in Vietnam, today said the group and others running independent advertisements should stop running them.

Doesn't this make it seem like Bush hadn't commented at all on the issue until now?

If people in the blogging community like me (who have real jobs and families to attend to) know about this - how do the principals at the Times miss it?

I'm usually not big on spreading pass-it-on stories, but I saw this on Normblog and figured it's worth the effort. It's basically about how tormentors of Jewish schoolchildren in France get a free pass, and on occasion, some money from the government which feels sorry for them.

The Montaigne school affair

Update: The case is mentioned here in an article the Jerusalem Post just posted:

Jewish leaders condemn laxity of French courts

LGF points out that perhaps the NY Times is the "Paper of Assumptions" instead of the "Paper of Record"

For some unknown reason, without a single shred of evidence, the New York Times blames yesterday’s attack on a Jewish center in Paris on “neo-Nazis:” Neo-Nazis in Paris Vandalize and Burn a Jewish Community Center.

What would we do without the New York Times to protect us from the big bad awful truth? Islamic group claims responsibility for Jewish center attack.

The NY Times, finally prints the kind of letter from a serviceman that one can find hundreds of on the internet. What a shame that these letters need to be printed in the Op-Ed column when this represents the real news. Perhaps the Times should put "Op-Ed" on it's front pages, and "International News" on some pages filled with letters like this one.

Over Najaf, Fighting for Des Moines

No, I would not sacrifice myself, my parents would not sacrifice me, and President Bush would not sacrifice a single marine or soldier simply for Falluja. Rather, that symbolic city is but one step toward a free and democratic Iraq, which is one step closer to a more safe and secure America.

I miss my family, my friends and my country, but right now there is nowhere else I'd rather be. I am a United States Marine.

I want this picture and caption on the front page of every newspaper in America. The story beneath should not describe how evil we will be if we kill these people, but how sick these people are and why we must destroy their culture. Yes, their culture of scarificing women and children. Yes, it's based in Islam. So let it be written. So let it be done.

Iraqi Shiite Muslim women and children, part of a group of ‘human shields’
protecting the shrine of Imam Ali, are seen inside the holy site in Najaf. They
are part of the several hundred supporters of Moqtada Sadr.(AFP/Ahmad Al-Rubaye)

Are you surprised?

Arsonists Destroy Jewish Center in Paris

I just hope they do this before Yom Kippur so that I can repent for being glad at another person's death.

Fatah splinter group calls for killing Arafat

Although the headline is misleading, this is probably about as fair and balanced a view as we're going to see from a mainstream newspaper.

Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete - Critics Fail to Disprove Kerry's Version of Vietnam War Episode

I say misleading because of paragraph number five:

An investigation by The Washington Post into what happened that day suggests that both sides have withheld information from the public record and provided an incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, picture of what took place. But although Kerry's accusers have succeeded in raising doubts about his war record, they have failed to come up with sufficient evidence to prove him a liar.

I think my favorite parts of the article are this:

When Kerry signed up to command a Swift boat in the summer of 1968, he was inspired by the example of his hero, John F. Kennedy, who had commanded the PT-109 patrol boat in the Pacific in World War II. But Kerry had little expectation of seeing serious action. At the time the Swift boats -- or PCFs (patrol craft fast), in Navy jargon -- were largely restricted to coastal patrols. "I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry wrote in a book of war reminiscences published in 1986.

And this:

As they were heading back to the boat, Kerry and Rassmann decided to blow up a five-ton rice bin to deny food to the Vietcong. In an interview last week, Rassmann recalled that they climbed on top of the huge pile and dug a hole in the rice. On the count of three, they tossed their grenades into the hole and ran.

Evidently, Kerry did not run fast enough. "He got some frags and pieces of rice in his rear end," Rassmann said with a laugh. "It was more embarrassing than painful." At the time, the incident did not seem significant, and Kerry did not mention it to anyone when he got back on the boat. An unsigned "personnel casualty report," however, erroneously implies that Kerry suffered "shrapnel wounds in his left buttocks" later in the day, following the mine explosion incident, when he also received "contusions to his right forearm."

If you want my opinion, and perhaps you do if you're reading this blog, this report does seem to add more fuel to the anti-Kerry fire even if he cannot prove that he lied about anything.

This hero of Vietnam (Mr. "I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty") didn't want to get involved at first and honestly didn't seem to take much more physical punishment than a lot of the other guys on the Swift Boats who didn't get to leave after four months. Two bullet holes in a boat does not "come under heavy fire" make.

This is not normally a topic I get involved in, but the Times had a strong Op-Ed today against the Bush administration's "bizarre" support for snowmobiling in Yellowstone National Park.

No Snowmobiles

Although they admit that there are two sides to the issue, the Times seems to be taking a "with us or against us" stand. (How ironic).

They are correct in stating that the National Park Service is indeed in favor of a ban. Winter Use Background Information seems to be a no-nonsense description of the issue at the NPS' website. The one thing it doesn't talk about is who exactly is fighting their decision to keep Yellowstone snowmobile-free.

From the Legislative side it seems like the House failed to ban the 'biles a couple of months ago. The liberal argument seems to be "it's not natural" while the conservative argument seems to be "some are OK if we keep the numbers down and the noise and pollution is toned down". The article also estimates that 900 jobs would be lost in an area that I can't imagine is a fountain of opportunity.

Here is a CNN story from 2000 with some pretty ugly claims against the snowmobiles. I'll accept that the numbers are true even if the sources aren't mentioned, although my belief is that some of the claimed results of snowmobile pollution seem a little far fetched to me on the face of it. I mean could the exhaust from a few hundred snowmobiles really mimic the air pollution levels of a metropolis of several million people? An unscientific poll linked to the article shows two-thirds of those who responded are against the ban.

Here's a brief article by one of the environmental groups claiming what the Times was saying in it's Op-Ed piece, that Bush is ignoring his own administrations studies about the damage to Yellowstone and a negligible economic impact. Again, unfortunately, there are no direct links to back up the claims.

And The Truth About Snowmobiling from an Industry Organization. This link has a complete timeline regarding the events surrounding the proposed ban.

Personally, I love the outdoors and given a choice would prefer to see a ban.

However, I find it disingenuous that the liberals who support the ban because snowmobiling denies people the opportunity to enjoy the park, are the same people that are against bans on smoking in public places because it denies people the freedom to do what they want.

Even though I usually get heartburn from reading the Letters to the Editor in the NY Times, sometimes it's fun to find a comment so radical that you know it HAS to come from someone who not only has a far-left opinion, but must be an active supporter of communist, anarchist or other "out-of-the-mainstream" groups.

Such is the case with today's letter from Rachelle Marshall of Stanford California.

The spreading insurgency in Iraq, and the anger aroused by the American military response to it in Najaf and other Iraqi cities, should be convincing evidence that it is time to withdraw our forces from Iraq (front page, Aug. 18).

As long as they remain, American soldiers will be seen as an occupying army, and any Iraqis associated with them or with a United States-backed government will be targets of attack.

The Iraqi people were once able to create a functioning government on their own, and there is no reason they can't do so again, without our interference. With the help of American financial aid and international organizations, they should be able to rebuild their country.

But first there has to be an end to the fighting, and although there is no guarantee the violence will end if we leave, it is certain to continue if we stay.

You just know this doesn't come from some working stiff blue state woman who took offense to a particular article - it must come from someone with an agenda.

A quick search shows Ms. Marshall to be a freelance writer who is a big supporter of the view that Palestinians and other Arabs would be better off if we (and Israel) weren't so evil. Her articles include The Saudi Peace Initiative - Will Israel Turn Down Yet Another Arab Peace Proposal? and US and Israel's Interests Converge in Iraq posted on Al-Jazeerah's website where she is noted as being a member of the Jewish International Peace Union.

Obviously there's nothing wrong with Ms. Marshall's opinions being published and I don't think that her activism is deliberately hidden by here. It's just that you would think with such a tremendous readerdship the Times could find one other reader viewpoint other than someone who is demonstrably on the fringe of the political debate. The Times policy of not letting it's readers respond to Letters to the Editor doesn't help.

According to the NY Times, North Korea just wants to be friends and we don't want to play.

I guess we can forget about all this stuff:

An Auschwitz in Korea

Horrifying tales of torture, execution in North Korea

Death, terror in N. Korea gulag
NBC News investigation uncovers horrific, extensive atrocities

How brutal is the North Korean government?

What possible reason could the NY Times have in printing the article they did without any reference to North Korea or Kim Jong Il's history? The only bad guys are Bush and the United States!

Another NY Times book review decides to throw in a subtle anti-Bush line. In its review of "Osama", a biography/history lesson about the jihadi movement, the reviewer writes:

Mr. Randal emphasizes certain psychological components (of Osama's life, ed.) that may remind the reader of similar dynamics in the life of George W. Bush.

No wonder George Bush is so evil...he apparently shares some characteristics with Osama bin Laden like having a stong father and a host of people willing to criticize his potential to lead. Thank G-d Osama or Bush weren't abused as children, or who knows how screwed up they'd be.

And how cowardly is it to say "may remind the reader" instead of "did remind this reader"?

I think I've just lost any desire to ever appear on any political discussion program for as long as I live.

AMBUSH JOURNALISM...OR MY EVENING WITH CAVEMAN CHRIS MATTHEWS

Does Fox News have a new slogan? Ijust heard Brit Hume sign off by saying, "fair, balanced and unafraid..."

Update on the Israeli judoka in Athens - Ze'evi earns respect for Israel with judo bronze

"Mazel tov, Arik," Prime Minister Arik Sharon belted out over the phone lines to his namesake judoka Arik Ze'evi hours after the three-time European judo champ added an Olympic bronze medal to his trophy case. "We're very proud of you and [the people of Israel] take part in your joy... You withstood the pressure like a true warrior."

I just wanted to post the link to the Wikipedia entry for John Kerry. He's actually led a fascinating life.

I didn't know that "John Kerry's maternal grandfather, James Grant Forbes, was born in Shanghai, China, where the Forbes family of China and Boston accumulated a fortune in the opium and China trade". (At least he wasn't a friend of the Nazis - just a drugrunner). Isn't it funny how the two Massachusetts senators come from families that made their money from drugrunning and bootlegging?

I also thought that the references to Kerry's being French were totally facetious.

Kerry says his first memory is from age three, of holding his crying mother's hand while they walked through the broken glass and rubble of her childhood home in Saint-Briac, France. The family estate, known as Les Essarts, had been occupied and used as a Nazi headquarters during the war. When the Germans fled, they bombed Les Essarts and burnt it down.

And I guess he didn't think joining the military was such a good idea at first - his French roots were calling:

After an application for a 12-month deferment to study in Paris was denied, Kerry joined the United States Navy on February 18, 1966.

Did you know that his taste for wealthy, well-connected women runs this deep?

In 1962, Kerry volunteered for Edward Kennedy's first Senatorial campaign. That summer, he began dating Janet Jennings Auchincloss, Jacqueline Kennedy's half-sister. Auchincloss invited Kerry to visit her family's estate, Hammersmith Farm in Rhode Island. It was there that Kerry met President Kennedy for the first time.

Or that:

In 2003, John Kerry was diagnosed with and successfully treated for prostate cancer.

Wow. I can't believe we don't hear more about this as a heroic struggle as opposed to getting a couple of band-aids and stitches in Vietnam. Cancer is life-threatening.

Kerry's quest for "plain truth" seems include everyone but him. In today's speech to the International Association of Fire Fighters, he repeats the false claim that "new jobs being created pay $9,000 less than the ones we’ve lost."

This claim has been fully debunked by the non-partisan factcheck.org which has been critical of both the Bush and Kerry campaigns.

Kerry's Dubious Economics

Kerry bases his claim on an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data by the Economic Policy Institute. But the EPI figures don't support what Kerry said, because they don't actually compare new jobs and old jobs -- only broad averages for entire industries. And as we reported July 9, other BLS numbers that compare occupation groups within industries tell a completely different story -- showing higher-paying groups growing faster than lower-paying groups.

Minor nitpick on John Kerry's speech this morning to the International Association of Fire Fighters. But then again, that's what blogs are for. Kerry said:

"September 11th, the day that so many of America’s finest rushed into burning towers so that others could rush out. They didn’t ask questions. They didn’t look back. And three hundred and forty-three of them made the ultimate sacrifice. Their courage lifted our nation."

America's finest refers to the NY Police Department. The NY Fire Department is commonly referred to as America's bravest. The two departments often hold athletic competitions and other events which are labeled as "The Finest vs The Bravest". 343 is indeed the number of firefighters only who died on that day.

Kerry's slip would be like calling the Mets the Bronx Bombers. Or something like that. In front of a Boston crowd which knows the difference.

Will someone please explain to me what John Kerry really thinks.

This is what he said the VFW today:

I want to say something about the plan that the President announced on Monday to withdraw 70,000 troops from Asia and Europe. Nobody wants to bring troops home more than those of us who have fought in foreign wars. But it needs to be done at the right time and in a sensible way. This is not that time or that way.

This is what Kerry said two weeks ago on ABC News:

"If the diplomacy that I believe can be put in place can work, I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there, but elsewhere in the world; in the Korean peninsula, perhaps; in Europe, perhaps."

So he was for the reduction of troops before he was against the reduction of troops? Or is it just that Bush's plan won't be as "effective".

Let’s be clear: the President’s vaguely stated plan does not strengthen our hand in the war against terror. And in no way relieves the strain on our overextended military personnel.

So it's better to spend more money to "Expand America's Active Duty Forces by 40,000 to relieve the strain on today's military", which by the way are not to be sent overseas, as opposed to bringing home up to 70,000 personnel? I'll take the extra 30,000 troops and the money savings, thank you very much.

Also, click here for the several pages long vague plan. I guess this is more vague than the Kerry quote from above - "in the Korean peninsula, perhaps; in Europe, perhaps.

This is my favorite line from the VFW speech:

``Why are we unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops from the Korean Peninsula at the very time we are negotiating with North Korea -- a country that really has nuclear weapons?''

Forget about the Bush administration's belief that the reduction is OK due to new technologies on the battlefiled and a strengthened South Korean army. Does he really think Kim Jong-Il is going to wake up tomorrow and say - now South Korea is undefended - let's invade!

The great thing about Bush is that at least when he misspeaks, you know what he meant. He can say he "wants to inflict great harm on Americans" and you know he meant the exact opposite.

With Kerry, he rarely misspeaks (AND is known to be quite verbose) and you still can't figure out what he believes.

UPDATE from the AP: "As president, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror," Kerry said. Earlier this month, he used that line - and added a promise to fight a more sensitive war, a bow to diplomacy that Vice President Dick Cheney said smacked of weakness.

Maybe he didn't say what he meant or mean what he said the first time. Last night on "Hardball" Chris Matthews was actually defending Kerry by saying it wasn't fair to call him a "flip-flopper", it's just that he's "wishy-washy". Maybe I'll just start calling John Kerry "Chuck" in honor of Charlie Brown.

What the hell is this? In a book review in the NY Times, the reviewer begins his review with these remarks.

One of the most persistent questions an American hears in Europe is: Why is the United States wasting so much time on (fill in the foreign crisis du jour) instead of doing more to solve the No. 1 issue in the cosmos, the lack of peace between Israel and the Palestinians? If you are the vice president, you might be tempted to offer an eloquent, if obscene, two-word rejoinder. For those desiring a longer explanation, look no further than Dennis Ross's memoir, ''The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace."

Where did that come from? Cheney wasn't even arguing about the Middle East when he made his remarks. And wasn't it John Kerry who said that Bush "f***d up" when specifically commenting on U.S. policy in the Middle East?

A personal thank you to Scotland Yard for arresting some people who may have been out to kill me or my colleagues.

British Charge 8 on Counts of Conspiring in Terrorism

Among them was a 25-year-old computer technician, Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, in whose possession the police found a large and detailed computerized archive of surveillance information on the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Washington, the Citigroup tower in Manhattan, the New York Stock Exchange and the Prudential Building in New Jersey.

I don't usually get involved in Education issues as the political arguments are usually about tactics that I know nothing about, not about whether our children should be well-educated or not.

Nevertheless, I will post this exchange of ideas since the Times came out so strongly against President Bush on it yesterday.

The Times original article yesterday - Nation's Charter Schools Lagging Behind, U.S. Test Scores Reveal
And their Op-Ed piece today - Bad News on the Charter Front
Counter-argument in the Wall Street Journal - Dog Eats AFT Homework

There was also this response from the Secretary of Education reported by the same person who wrote the original story - Education Secretary Defends Charter Schools

It wasn't until I read the last line of that article that I realized what the problem was.

The secretary's reaction prompted surprise from Darvin Winnick, chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees the national test for the federal government. Mr. Winnick said that while he would interpret the scores with caution, he did not see much cause for arguing with the outcomes themselves.

"The data is probably what it is,'' Mr. Winnick said. "N.A.E.P. is pretty accurate. There shouldn't be any question about the results.''

The problem is that the headline and the reporting jump to the conclusion that Charter Schools are "Lagging Behind". In fact, the data isn't about the schools at all, it was about the students, and everyone seems to agree that the students coming in to charter schools are almost by definition lower performers to begin with. There is definitely something to the argument that a school should be judged on the progressive achievement of their students, and that it is impossible to judge a school solely on it's student base when you're not dealing with the same population.

I cannot say definitively who is right and who is wrong, but I think the front page report and headline was definitely unfair.

It's pretty amazing to me how little play this seems to be getting outside of Israel, even in the blogosphere. Does no one care about the Paelstinians anymore? Or is the fact that Palestinians wanting to kill themselves is not news?

Arafat joins prisoners' hunger strike

More Palestinians join hunger strike

2,264 out of a total of 3,800 male Palestinian detainees have already joined a hunger strike being waged by prisoners in security facilities around the country.

The Israelis are so hungry for action now that there are no more successful suicide bombers that they are going after inanimate objects.

Israeli military attacks Gaza house

That poor defenseless house - what did it ever do to hurt anyone?

My local newspaper is having a contest - write a 350 word (or less) nomination acceptance speech for President Bush. I've submitted the following. Please remember this is not meant to be an argument in favor, just what I would say if I were him.

-----------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your support and thanks for all you’ve done for this great country. You may consider voting for me in November, but the truth is you will be voting for all of us, for a stronger economy and for freedom.

When I took the oath of office in January 2001, our economy was losing jobs and heading into recession. Overseas, our enemies were growing increasingly bold in their attacks against our country and the worst was yet to come.

How did Americans respond to these initial challenges of the 21st Century? First, we turned this economy around by taking less of your money in taxes. Motivated business owners then found ways to create new jobs resulting in three years of uninterrupted economic growth. The average unemployment rate since I took office is lower than at any time since the 1960’s, and continues to drop. Inflation and interest rates are near forty-year lows. Home ownership, an essential ingredient in the American dream, is at record highs.

Now let’s look back at what we’ve accomplished overseas; things that seemed unimaginable only a few years ago. Afghanistan is a free country. Ninety percent of Afghani men and women have registered to vote. In Iraq, millions are now free from the iron grip of a mass murderer and are preparing for democratic rule. Libya has given up its arms program. A new generation in the Middle East is being born with all the opportunities granted to it by freedom and liberty. Hope has returned to the birthplace of civilization.

I am determined that the American people keep moving forward as well, urged on by the dreams of those that have sacrificed so much. Those who have passed the torch of freedom and prosperity on to both their loved ones and to people they will never know. Because of them, our children will be safer, freer and more prosperous than we ourselves dare to imagine. Their dreams are our dreams. And our dreams will come true.

God Bless All of You and God Bless the United States of America.

I like Drudge's headline best - No Judo With the Jew

Iran's world judo champion Arash Miresmaeili refused to compete against an Israeli Sunday, triggering a fresh crisis at the Olympic Games where race, creed or color are not allowed to interfere with sport.

I know this doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things, but why is the Iranian contestant named and not the Israeli?

I read an article in the Buenos Aires newspaper Clarin by an expert on modern European politics (Timothy Garton Ash) which was translated from the original english version.

The theme of Si Kerry cumple, Europa sonreirá (Let's rock the boat) regards John Kerry's desire to take America in a different direction.

I'll start off by saying that it's funny how the Argentine newspaper has a totally different headline. Theirs translates to "If Kerry Wins, Europe Will Smile". The subheading of "Let's Rock the Boat" is Europeans should be cautious recruits to a President Kerry's war on terrorism. The Clarin version of course cuts out the first several paragraphs of the article which sets the tone for the original, including a the words of a son comforting his father who thinks he's about to die aboard United flight 175.

What I found most intriguing about the article though, was the following:

All American leaders think we are at war; most European leaders think we are still at peace.

If Europe has any wisdom at all, we should start thinking now about how we answer this Democratic challenge. Our answer should be, "Yes, so long as _ " Yes, so long as you rededicate yourself to a peace process between Israel and Palestine. So long as you recognise that Iraq has to be embedded into a much larger project of reform and development in the broader Middle East, which America and Europe can only achieve together. So long as you deliver on your promises to develop alternative energy technologies, address your own excessive carbon dioxide emissions, come back to the international treaties and institutions that the Bush administration abrogated and scorned.

We're all in the same boat, too, and we want to be. However, before skipper Kerry pulls the throttle, we have to agree not just the rules of engagement but who exactly the enemy is and what creek we're up.

Kerry voters, if you think that Europe is going to bend over backwards for him and send their sons to their deaths just becuase he's not Bush, you've got another thing coming. Remember these are the same lovely people that cheer the free Afghanis and Iraqis at the Olympics and temper their cheers for the people that freed them....and cheer the athletes of the non-existent Palestine, while ignoring the Israelis whose athletes were murdered by Palestinians at the same Olympic Games not 30 years ago.

In Sunday's Times, there's an in-depth Magazine cover story on Ariel Sharon - Sharon's Wars. It comes across as generally even-handed, although I'm sure if I re-read it a couple of times, I might notice that he is called a liar more than once and that most of his decisions have brought misery to someone. You come away with the opinion that Shraon is where he is throught sheer force of will, not becuase he's done anyone any good.

Sunday's Op-Ed page also has a harsh rebuke for John Kerry - About That Iraq Vote

Arab nations have a painful history of Western colonization, and there is an instinctive resistance to the idea of a Western occupation of Arab soil. How much does Mr. Kerry think the addition of French and German soldiers would have improved things? In retrospect, it seems that even if Arab nations like Saudi Arabia or Egypt had added their support, the outcome would have more likely been trouble for the governments of those countries back home rather than credibility on the streets of Baghdad.

There are undoubtedly circumstances that call for military action, but we would like to know whether, as president, John Kerry would insist on a higher threshold than he settled for as an opportunistic senator in 2002.

Does anybody remember what a good idea prohibition was? And how's that drug war going? Let's see what was the basic idea again? Spend billions of dollars to reduce a product's use by - making it illegal to produce or posses, destroy the factories and fields used to make the product, and aggressively try to curtail the transport of said products across state and national borders.

Hasn't really worked has it?

So why the hell does Nicholas Kristof think this will work with nuclear weapon technology?

The Nuclear Shadow

First, it's paramount that we secure uranium and plutonium around the world.

A second step we must take is stopping other countries from joining the nuclear club

A third step is to prevent the smuggling of nuclear weapons into the U.S.

Sound familiar?

And this is supposed to work without using armed force as is/was used in alcohol/drug prohibition, on a worldwide scale as opposed to national, and without the benefit of any international organization that will be willing to declare nuclear technology illegal in the first place (none of whom have the power to arrest anyway).

If people want something badly enough and they have money, they can get it. And our enemies have a lot of money - some of it actually coming from the West which feels so badly about the living standards of the

In the old days, "you kill us and we'll kill you" used to work. When the enemy doesn't mind death, you have to kill them first. In this case the soft underbelly of our enemies are the nuclear scientists who work for them. Start killing them - now. I can bet you that fewer people will want to become nuclear scientists, thereby preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

Think that's cruel? How many people have been killed (accidentally or not) and imprisoned in the war on drugs?

You got a better idea?

Just in case you hadn't noticed that the U.S. has become an almost unbearable place to live, here's about 1,500 Reasons Not to Vote for Bush.

If I see a similar pro-Bush or anti-Kerry site, I'll post it as well. Man that had to have taken a lot of time. If someone spent just two minutes on each reason, that would be 50 hours of work. Wow.

You know why I'm voting for George Bush? Because the left is morally wrong about war in the Middle East. The best example is today's sickening NY Times Editorial on Iran.

Indispensable Allies on Iran

They argue about the danger of Iran's having nuclear weapons, but don't go out of their way to explain why. Iran's ruling mullahs are justifiably unpopular. That is the full extent of their claims against Iran. What right do we have to demand that Iran abandon it's nuclear efforts just because their leadership is unpopular? None.

There is no mention of the oppression of women, political opponents or support for Hizbollah - and who knows how many other terrorist organizations - and their constant declarations that we and our allies are enemies to be defeated.

Lets' assume that the Times readership knows all this which is why the editorial board is against Iran's development of nuclear weapons. How do they propose we stop them from attaining nuclear capacity? "Tough-minded negotiations" based on international agency "analyses" using "European diplomacy". These words are emptier than the Judaica section at the Tehran Barnes & Noble (except for those dog-eared copies of "Protocols" and "Mein Kampf").

What they really mean to say is that it is OK for us to be blackmailed - perpetually negotiating to give Iran some substantial physical benefit in exchange for a promise not to develop, dare we use the term, WMDS. Even assuming that the Iranians keep their initial promises, when does the price become too large?

Late last month it resumed building the centrifuges needed for such enrichment, ending a construction freeze it had agreed to earlier this year with Britain, France and Germany.

No doubt after the allies already paid them whatever it is they were asking in return for compliance.

Oh, but luckily the Times does propose that "action" be taken after "some time". If there's one thing they teach you in the world of business it's that in order to achieve anything you have to have a goal that is specific and measurable. Taking unspecified action after an undetermined amount of time is neither, and by definition cannot yield any results.

To get back to my original point, I believe it is not morally correct to protect some people's lives today at the expense of ignoring the suffering of millions at the hands of an enemy who has openly called for your destruction.

Also read A Triumph for Soft Power which explains exactly how ridiculous the Times' position is.

And if you don't like the WMD argument, or the argument that imposing democracy is worth the short-term cost, you may want to learn why the Iran's mullahs are unpopular.

“Like the Dead in Their Coffins”Torture, Detention, and the Crushing of Dissent in Iran

So go ahead, whistle your happy tune and fill up your SUVs. And hope that the next 9/11 doesn't happen to you. But don't worry, France and Germany have your best interests at heart. Just ask John Kerry.

A short list of Iranian sponsored attacks against the U.S. and Jewish interests:

Iran Hostage Crisis
Bombing of Marine Barracks in Beirut
A.M.I.A. Bombing - Argentina
And the Israeli Embassy there too

Coming soon to an American street-corner near you. If we don't act soon. None of these attacks were "expected".

Oh yeah, I almost forgot that Iran is supplying our enemies in Iraq. The link is to a left-wing site that of course blames us for Iranian involvement. I mean, after we went in to Iraq they just couldn't help themselves! This type of support used to be a causus belli in and of itself.

Shlep me out to the ball game....Cooperstown celebrates MOTs with low ERAs and high RBIs.

On August 29-30, the Museum will welcome several former major leaguers to discuss the role of American-Jewish athletes in baseball. On Monday, August 30, at 8:30 a.m., a skills clinic for youths ages six to 13, featuring the former major leaguers, will be held at the Clark Sports Center. Among those scheduled to participate include: Ron Blomberg, Mike Epstein, Joe Ginsberg, Ken Holtzman, Richie Scheinblum, Norm Sherry and Bob Tufts. On both days, noted authors and scholars will discuss a number of Jewish baseball subjects, including the legacies of Hall of Fame members Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax, and the life of legendary American spy and major league catcher Moe Berg. Admission to all programs is free for Museum visitors, but tickets are required and seating is limited.

"Jew Gully"? I am definitely going to check that out the next time I am in Jamaica - and I don't mean Queens.

$7.6 m to clear roads

"As we speak, we are continuing cleaning exercises on 10 small gullies and drains in Kingston, which in most cases started last week," he added. "These range from Majesty Gardens to Whitfield Town, to Foreshow Road to Hagley Park Road between Waltham Park Road and Three Miles, to Marcus Garvey Drive to Jew Gully, to the road by the AMC Market on Spanish Town Road and sections of the Constant Spring Gully."

Here's something interesting to chew on - after almost four years, not one senior Bush administration or campaign official has been brought up on ethics, fraud or other criminal charges of any kind. Have they? Maybe their opponents are too focused on the war. I'm not talking about legal losses regarding handing over documents or constitutional matters, but personal foibles.

Here's some estimates I found on past presidencies - yes Reagan could be seen as the worst:

* According to our best information, 40 government officials were indicted or convicted in the wake of Watergate. A reader computes that there was a total of 31 Reagan era convictions, including 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes with 33 of these occurring during the Clinton administration itself. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned. A key difference between the Clinton story and earlier ones was the number of criminals with whom he was associated before entering the White House.

Using a far looser standard that included resignations, David R. Simon and D. Stanley Eitzen in Elite Deviance, say that 138 appointees of the Reagan administration either resigned under an ethical cloud or were criminally indicted. Curiously Haynes Johnson uses the same figure but with a different standard in "Sleep-Walking Through History: America in the Reagan Years: "By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been
convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."

The New York Times, months after detailed reports by William Safire and the blogosphere at large, finally decides to report on the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal.
How they have failed to find this relevant up until now considering their desire for deeper international involvement in Iraq, I have no idea.

Under Eye of U.N., Billions for Hussein in Oil-for-Food Plan

BILLIONS! Now let's see how much ink the Times lends to this scandal as opposed to Enron and Worldcom and other Clinton era misdeeds that have been placed on Bush's doorstep. Not this time. This is all Clinton.

The only reason this program ended was becuase we went in and took out the chief architect. Under Kerry, Saddam and his cronies the French and Russians would still be collecting. Nuanced. Sensitive. Wrong.

I am writing this in response to a long post by the Brother-In-Law regarding Bush's "us vs. them" approach to the issues and a Jews' decision to affiliate with the Democrat or Republican party.

-----------------------------------------------------

I will attack the topic of Bush’s ability to see issues in shades of gray by looking at the proper role of a leader. A leader is someone who is either chosen or by natural ability stands out as a person who others look to for guidance and direction - in other words, leadership. The most important test of leadership is not in determining what goes into their decision-making process, but the end results. I would rather have a President who listened to no one and made good decisions - a natural born leader, than a President who listened to everyone and still made the wrong choices.

I would also suggest that you don’t disagree with leaders who see the world in “black and white” if they agree with your particular viewpoint. Leaders like Gandhi, MLK, Lincoln and Churchill are well-respected , either as freedom fighters or warriors, exactly because they didn’t understand the meaning of the word compromise - and they happened to come out on the right side of history. “Leaders” with nuanced views of the world like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry will never accomplish anything that will be remembered in the long run, and no memorial will be built in their name because they don’t have a message or an ideal that resonates, and any ideas they do have do not appear to be heartfelt. We need to leave the nuances of policy to our Legislative and Judicial branches. The job of the Chief Executive is to lead. And if we don’t like where he’s leading we kick him out.

Which brings me to your point about fascism. If you are going to claim that aspects of the Bush Administration resemble the root problems of fascism, we need to look at how Anarchy is part of the liberal mentality. Instead of a melting pot where the best of all cultures is merged together into something uniquely American, multiculturalism reigns. No aspect of any culture is worth more than any other, not even when compared to the "American" culture which is the result of 300+ years under the melting pot theory. It is understandable how one could become a suicide bomber. It is equally OK for a child to be raised with two daddies than with a mother and a father. Who are we to intervene when a people "chooses" to live under a dictatorship or a monarchy?

You say that a fascist governemnt plays on the fears of it's people. The word that is left out is "unfounded". The Jews weren't going to take over Germany. Islamic fundamentalists did attack our embassies, ships, discos, and ultimately the Trade Center. This has happened for 20-30 years again and again and again. Their leader's claim openly to desire the destruction of America. Heads are chopped off and videotapes are distributed proudly. You can argue about how we choose to confront the enemy, but to deny that the enemy exists is a specious argument.

What disturbs me most about your analysis is the seeming belief that evil doesn’t exist in the world - that “us versus them” is not a legitimate argument. You are also projecting your ideas onto the President which are not his. I just heard him say on Larry King very plainly that our current war is between those who believe in freedom and those who want to keep people from being free. That a person who does not believe in God is just as American as someone who does and that whoever does is American regardless of what religion they follow. I can’t seem to imagine similar words coming from the fascist dictators we all grew up learning about.

Getting back to the good vs. evil point, ever since Cain murdered Abel (please forgive the biblical reference) humans have acted unjustly against other humans. From the playground bully to the dictator who orders the deaths of millions of their own countrymen, there are people that choose to deny to others individual liberties or life itself at their whim. Our entire legal system is based on “us versus them”. The “people” versus defendant X. Not all such confrontations need end in violence or death, but there comes a point where a stance must be taken. When a group of people decide to commit a surprise attack designed to kill thousands of civilians and others cheer them on, those people have reached a point of no return and deserve death, not a place at the negotiating table. These people are evil and the world is better off without them. That does not mean that you kill because you want to, but because you have to. To paraphrase what I believe one famous Israeli leader said, I don’t hate the Arabs for what they have done to my people, I hate them for making us have to kill in order to survive.

Speaking of Israel, you may doubt the Judeo-Christian foundation of America’s principles, but that’s exactly why conservative Jews like myself don’t worry about dual loyalties. The underlying principles of both states is a combination of religious ideals and Western Enlightenment which can never be at cross-purposes. Sure there can be policy differences and questions about how to get from point A to point B, but it's hard for me to imagine truly fundamental differences ever occuring.

Lets face it, we’re are forced neither to be Jews nor Americans. A simple plane ticket will buy your way to another homeland and a profession of belief in Jesus will get you out of the Jewish faith. Any American Jew today can be a French Catholic tomorrow. Therefore my loyalty to the Jewish people (and Israel which embodies the hopes and dreams of those people) and to America are both personal decisions based on my love for each. I can love my two daughters and I can love my two countries. I consider myself lucky to live in a land where people are allowed to have a love for their homeland and express pride in their origins. That's part of what makes America great.

If all the Jews left America, the country would survive. If all the Jews left Israel, the viability of the Jewish people would be at risk. If you are Jewish and are reading this, the only reason you are alive today is because America and Britain took an “us vs. them” attitude 60 years ago. Why there were even internments and racist propaganda used by those sides to incite their people into a wartime frenzy against the “Krauts” and the “Japs”.

Thank God for that. More to come.

A "free-speech" advocate makes her point in the New York Times today:

Tyranny in the Name of Freedom

So it has come down to this: You are at liberty to exercise your First Amendment right to assemble and to protest, so long as you do so from behind chain-link fences and razor wire, or miles from the audience you seek to address.

The First Amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There is no right to assemble AND protest. There is a right to assemble PEACEABLY and a right to complain to the GOVERNMENT.

That's right, the Republican Party actually has the right to go wherever they please and assemble without being molested and harassed.

People do not have a right to assemble with the intention of causing a racket, disrupting others' rights to assemble and certainly not to follow individual citizens around to dinner parties which is what many of the protesting organizations want to do.

Believe it or not, you do not have the right to go to private functions, even where members of government are present, and cause a disruption or otherwise deny those assembled the right to enjoy themselves unmolested.

Once again, it's this turning of the tables of responsibility. It's not the anarchists (ANARCHISTS!) fault that the city will be in chaos, it's the Republican's fault for daring to exercise their right to assemble! Remember the First Amendment?

Forget about the U.S. having to defend itself in front of the Olympic crowds, the Iraqi team will be doing our P.R. for us without even having to mention us by name.

Iraq Stuns Portugal in Men's Soccer

I'm too lazy, but can someone out there do a count what percentage of Olympic athletes outside the Americans owe their freedom to the U.S?

The turning point in this election will be when Rudy Giuliani takes the stand (I mean podium) in defense of George W. at the Republican Convention. As is mentioned in this NY Times article he will be speaking almost exclusively about 9/11 because:

"Not discussing it would be like conducting an election for Abraham Lincoln and not discussing the Civil War."

Or as he we will surely point out:

"I don't need Michael Moore to tell me about 9/11."

Pardon the analogy, but takign a page from the Al-Qaeda handbook, the Republicans have been planning this speech at this palce at this time for three years and the payoff is going to be huge.

I also have to comment about the Time's reporters use of conventional liberal wisdom in her reporting. She writes that:

Even yesterday, while vigorously defending President Bush, Mr. Giuliani seemed to float away from his party's talking points, declaring Mr. Kerry qualified to be president, even if he would not vote for him.

Which senior Republican has ever said that Kerry was not qualified to be President?

In fact, when I did a google search on "Kerry" and "not qulaified" the majority of relevant results had to do with Kerry saying that Edwards wasn't qualified to be President!

If you're Jewish and you plan on voting for Kerry, all I ask is you take a deep breath and pray before you pull the lever that gives Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore a seat of honor in the Oval Office. Oh, how I wish that we only had Monica to be concerned about!

The most common refrain heard throughout the convention was that America needed to restore its respect and popularity in the world.

What better way to do that than by ending its solid support for Israel?

And if Kerry doesn't withdraw support for Israel, we'll just be back to the pre-9/11 situation, just waiting for the next attack. They will always hate us.

So here's your choice - back Israel, kill Islamists, more soldiers die, change comes. Or, back Israel, stop killing Islamists, build up defenses, pray we avoid attack. Or deny support to Israel, stop killing Islamists and live in peace while others die instead.

I have a newfound respect for Kid Rock. OK, maybe it's just a found respect.

Mr. Rock continued: "I think we should pay attention to what's going on, but I think we should keep that in our families and our communities. Just because I have the power to tell you who I'm sleeping with and jump on TV and tell you my political views - I think that's wrong.''

Iran does some field tests on it's new long range missile which is being produced for "deterrent purposes".

Six of the sand-colored missiles, bearing slogans which said "We will stamp on America" and "We will wipe Israel from the face of the earth," were displayed at an annual military parade last September.

Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said last week Iran was working on improvements to the range and accuracy of the Shahab-3 in response to Israel's moves to boost its anti-missile capability.

With any luck, in the not-too-distant future, Iran will be surrounded by a stable Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan which will all be friendly to the U.S.

Dumbest Quote of the Day - this comes from an article regarding potential manipulation of the European bond market by Citigroup:

One trader said: "Citigroup made money on the trades which means other people lost money. It cannot be allowed to get away with this.

Umm, maybe this person needs to go back to college at take Capitalism 101 over again.

So let's see if we can understand John Kerry's beliefs about the need to go to war in Iraq.

He now says that the presence of WMDs didn't matter in the first place, the war was valid.

"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have but I would have used that authority effectively."

I think this is Kerry-speak for saying he also would have gone to war in Iraq.

This is of course after he claimed that there was no need to go to Iraq at all.
This administration took its eye off of the real war on terror, which is in Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan, and transferred it for reasons of its own to Iraq"

And there was certainly no connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq.

Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry said, "the administration misled America."

"The administration reached too far," he told Detroit radio station WDET. "They did not tell the truth to Americans..."

He believes Bush sold the country on Al-Qaeda and WMDs which was misleading. And, if I remember correctly, the only offer that Bush could make to the international community for their joining hands on Iraq was the possible presence of terrorists and WMDs in Iraq.

So...how would John Kerry have convinced the UN and our "allies", the French and the Germans, to go along with his invasion of Iraq if he didn't think there were WMDs or a connection to al-Qaeda?

Reporting for duty, Monsieur Kerry!



And you say Kerry doesn't look French?

Gotta give the Wall Street Journal credit for publishing the opinion piece by Jim Rassmann, whose life John Kerry saved in Vietnam.

Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush

This man writing to the New York Times blames "W" for his being unemployed.

Re "Bad News on the Job Front'' (editorial, Aug. 7): I am an unemployed music teacher who has been searching for a band director's position since 2002. I have had interviews with 17 school districts and have yet to receive an offer of employment.

To pay for my share of the monthly expenses, I teach private music lessons (feast or famine) and perform freelance (I am a trombone player). This is discouraging.

If the administration values education, it should value music education as well as academics. I want an opportunity to make a difference in students' lives.

Richard G. Williams
Larchmont, N.Y., Aug. 7, 2004

Aside from the fact that he defines his employment status by whether or not he gets a job paid for by other taxpayers, he got turned down for 17 jobs! This man doesn't have a God-given right to be a band director. He then suggests to the reader indirectly that the Bush administration is not supporting music education.

Well, I don't know about the dollars involved, but I don't think that the current Education Secretary would show his face on VH1 SAVE THE MUSIC REPORT CARD, if the administration wasn't backing up their words with dollars.

"I THINK MUSIC AND THE ARTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED CORE SUBJECTS IN OUR NATION'S SCHOOLS. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CONFLICT BETWEEN THE EXPANSION OF OUR FINE ARTS PROGRAMS, OUR MUSIC PROGRAMS AND FOCUS ON OTHER ACADEMIC PROGRAMS." - Secretary of Education Paige

When I wake up tomorrow or the next day, I better damn well see this headline:

Moqtada Al-Sadr kileed by U.S. Marines - Strung Up By Balls

This - U.S. Is Tightening Grasp on Rebels Encircled in Iraq - has been good enough in the past, but not anymore.

Watch Ali G (Sacha Cohen) sing "Throw the Jew Down the Well" and tell me whether you laughed or you cried.

Sure you know about anti-Semitic assaults and arson in France and Canada, desecrated cemetaries around the world, political name-calling and all the other typical anti-Semitic acts that hapeen daily. But did you ever think this would happen?

Jewish students attacked at Auschwitz

Admit it, no you didn't. It's becuase my dear friend, as many have said about our attitude towards Al-Qaeda, our biggest problem is that we don't have sufficient power to imagine the evil that others would do.

I always thought that as liberal support groups go, Planned Parenthood was relatively mainstream. Take a look at the video posted at Instapundit earlier today. If you still think that the hate-Bush crowd is a fringe element of the Democratic party - think again.

CALL ME CRAZY, but I don't find this ad very persuasive, even in a cause I agree with. If I were the Republicans, I'd try to get it broadcast in primetime. Or at least the flying-ninja-Kerry part.

Yup, that Bush - he's a fearmonger alright.

I concur. Arabs on the Verge of Democracy

Here's a reaction from the UK, declaring that the Swiftboat Vets' "Unfit for Command" book as a counterpunch to Michael Moore's criticism of Bush. Or more specifically, it is a "shit-blitz designed to counter the serious damage inflicted by Michael Moore." Nice.

Dirty politics

The only difference is that Michael Moore's criticism is based on opinion. Bush was right or wrong to stay in that classroom on 9/11, depending on how you feel. Bush either takes too much vacation or doesn't, depending on how you feel. The sacrifice of American soldier's lives is right or wrong depending on how you feel. Even helping bin Laden's family get out of the U.S. can be right or wrong, nevermind the factual issues about whether they were given special privileges to fly on those days.

The Kerry allegations are about basic truths. Were the purple hearts based on superficial wounds or weren't they? Did John Kerry really get sent to Cambodia in Christmas 1968? We already know it wasn't by Nixon as he has said. The book is filled with witnesses to these events and unless you are willing to believe that ALL these men were paid off to denounce Kerry, you have to take it seriously. None of this should be a surprise to Kerry since 25% more Vietnam Vets plan to vote for Bush according to the polls. That's a landslide in any political dictionary.

And how do you like this?

Nearly half of all voters (48%) say they have family or friends who are currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. These voters prefer President Bush by a 51% to 41% margin. Military veterans prefer Bush by a wider margin.

John Kerry declares that he is "reporting for duty" but the people he would command don't want to serve him.

In addition, from Michael Duff:

I find it amusing that earning medals makes Kerry a saint who deserves to be president, but when a bunch of guys who have the same medals question him, they're just a bunch of lying Republican stooges.

You can't have it both ways. You can't worship the medals and ignore them when they're pinned to Republicans.

If you like Boggle even one-tenth as much as I do, click this link and you'll never leave the house.

Weboggle

John Kerry's stance on Iraq is very disturbing. From Redstate:

Digging through Kerry's rhetoric takes time and a strong stomach, but I caught the gist of the " he's going withdraw anyway" because he already has his excuse readied

KERRY (from an NPR interview): Ah, no, not necessarily at all, because I think our diplomacy can produce a very different ingredient on the ground. And if it can't produce a different ingredient on the ground, lemme tell you something, that says something about what Iraqis want, and what the people in the region want.

IMO, this is just a variation on the theme we've heard ad nauseam from the usual suspects "if Iraqis really wanted Saddam gone, they would have gotten rid of him themselves." Kerry's rationale is going to be, if insurgents are still bombing, murdering, terrorizing etc then it's because that what the Iraqis really want.

So if the French don't play along, and the "insurgents" continue the fight (egged on by the hope of Kerry's election and the possibility of withdrawal) it tells us what the Iraqis want, which by extension is what John Kerry wants. What if a poll of Iraqis showed hope for the future of democracy and a desire to defeat the insurgents? Will Kerry come out and say "Let's kill them all, it's what the Iraqis want"? The reporting below is from the poll linked to above:

On a personal level, seven in 10 Iraqis say things overall are going well for them — a result that might surprise outsiders imagining the worst of life in Iraq today. Fifty-six percent say their lives are better now than before the war, compared with 19 percent who say things are worse (23 percent, the same). And the level of personal optimism is extraordinary: Seventy-one percent expect their lives to improve over the next year.