Blogging from vacation in Western North Carolina. This is Looking Glass Falls in Pisgah National Forest. We got here a little past peak for leaf-viewing, but the mountains are spectacular anyway.

This post is not so much to show that liberals can be a nasty lot - it's just to respond to those who profess that conseratives have a lock on obnoxiousness.

Colo. Teacher Sorry for Kicking Student

A part-time college instructor has apologized for kicking a student because he was wearing a Republican shirt.

Fort Lewis College student Mark O'Donnell said he was showing people his College Republicans sweat shirt, which said "Work for us now ... or work for us later," when Maria Spero kicked him in the leg at an off-campus restaurant.

Spero then said "she should have kicked me harder and higher," said O'Donnell. "To physically take that out on someone because you disagree with them, that is completely wrong."

Spero, a visiting instructor of modern languages, apologized to O'Donnell in a letter dated Oct. 29.

"I acted entirely inappropriately by kicking you, giving vent to a thoughtless knee-jerk political reaction that should never have happened," she wrote. "Before the incident, I did not know you and that you are a Fort Lewis student."

This is a typical response of Islamic terorrists. I remember when they apologized to an Arab-Israeli family after their son was killed. "Oops, we thought he was a Jew", they said. Which of course would have made it OK.

Like Mother, Like Son

John Kerry's stepson, Chris Heinz, 31, displayed his mother Teresa's famous lack of rhetorical restraint at a recent campaign event with a group of Wharton students. Philadelphia magazine reports: "Heinz accused Kerry's opponents - 'our enemies' - of making the race dirty. 'We didn't start out with negative ads calling George Bush a cokehead,' he said, before adding, 'I'll do it now.'

And even though this is several days old...

Man accused of trying to run down Rep. Katherine Harris

Police in Sarasota, Florida, arrested a man accused of trying to run down Rep. Katherine Harris and her supporters with a car Tuesday, a police spokesman said...

After police tried to contact Seltzer, he came to to the Sarasota Police station where, according to a police report, he admitted trying to "intimidate" a group of Harris supporters.

"I was exercising my political expression," Seltzer told police, according to the report.

So it seems as though the NY Times and 60 minutes are still working in paralell. First it was the story about missing explosives which the NY Times reported and CBS was holding on to right before election night.

Now it's another "failure to protect our toops" story which I mentioned in my previous post which 60 Minutes is holding onto to replace the explosives story. Not wanting to be left out (or ossible wanting to scoop 60 Minutes again, the Times published this story today.

Along With Prayers, Families Send Armor

I expect Kerry, who takes his lead from the Times like a dog on a leash, will be trumpeting this over the next few days even though this story has been told for over a year.

I'm in too much of a rush to try to defend the administration, but I'm sure this is another example of people expecting a bloodless war.

On a side note, they say that the poor performance of the economy is one of Kerry's strongest issues. News of our strengthening economy was up on the Times home page for less than 24 hours and their doesn't seem to be a follow-up article. You can find more articles on the Red Sox winning the World Series.

60 minutes was scooped out of screwing Bush on the explosives story this Sunday, so now they're going for the "hundreds of our soldiers are dead becuase we didn't provide armor" story.

IN HARM'S WAY - Even though roadside explosive devices account for half of all the war's U.S. casualties, soldiers are still getting killed and wounded by them because the Pentagon hasn't provided enough fully-armored vehicles to protect them. Steve Kroft reports.

Their other segments are on Saturday Night Live and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Couldn't they have done something about John Kerry - even a positive story? Let's see if they at least have the decency to mention the $87 million in funding for armor and weapons that John Kerry voted against.

I realize that 60 Minutes prides itself on investigative (i.e. attack) journalism, but give me a break. This story is so old it has mold on it.

Democratic ladies and gentlemen - I present you with your candidate for leader of the free world.

NBCNEWS Brokaw interviewed John Kerry Thursday evening.

Brokaw: "If you had been President, Saddam Hussein would be in power."

Kerry: "Not necessarily."

Brokaw: "You said you wouldn't go to war against him."

Kerry: "That's not true. Because under the inspection process, Saddam Hussein was required to destroy those kinds of materials and weapons."

Brokaw: "But he wasn't destroying them."

Kerry: "That's what you have inspectors for. That's why I voted for the threat of force, because he only does things when you have a legitimate threat of force. It's irresponsible to suggest that if I were President, he wouldn't be gone. He might be gone, because if he hadn't complied, we might have had to go to war, but if we did, we would have gone with allies, so the American people weren't carrying the entire burden. And the entire world would understand why we did it."

If you can't see why this is a pathetic and false this response is without me having to explain it to you, I wish you luck in John Kerry's America.

I am so sick of headline writers - especially at the NY Times.

GDP for the third quarter was released today. As the Times reports:

The economy was "bolstered by healthy consumer spending that was accompanied by the lowest inflation in decades".

Pretty good news right? Even better, GDP rose 3.7 percent, a faster rate than the second quarter. But what's the headline?

Economy Grew at Slower-Than-Expected 3.7% in 3rd Quarter

Never mind the fact that they prefer to compare the new numbers with a fictional estimate as opposed to the hard facts of the prior quarter.

The only no-spin headline would read - "Economy Grows at 3.7 Percent in the Third Quarter". Period.

It was really cloudy here in North Texas, but the moon came out for about a minute during the eclipse. Doesn't it look like it's wearing a yarmulke? Could this be a sign? Will Arafat die? Will the Red Sox win for the first time since 1918? Next lunar eclipse is on March 3, 2007.

Please G-d, let this be the end. And with his dying breath let him know that his life was worthless and his only legacy is a trail of thousands of dead bodies. May he be subject to everlasting torture in a special circle of hell forever.

Palestinian Official: Arafat's Health Worse

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) - Yasser Arafat's health worsened Wednesday, and a team of doctors went to his compound to examine the Palestinian leader, who summoned the prime minister and another top politician to his bedside, according to a Palestinian official close to Arafat.

I don't know if I'll get around to watching this, but it seems like a fantastic story of human sacrifice and kindness.

"The Four Chaplains: Sacrifice at Sea"

The true story of four World War II U.S. Army chaplains who sacrificed their lives to save their comrades comes to life in "The Four Chaplains: Sacrifice at Sea," a prime-time television special that airs nationally on Wednesday, November 10, (10 p.m. ET/PT) on Hallmark Channel. The one-hour documentary recounts through dramatic military film footage, recreations, and personal interviews with survivors and family members how a Catholic priest, a Jewish rabbi, and two Protestant ministers removed their life jackets for others, and spent their last moments praying, arm-in-arm, as the U.S.A.T. Dorchester went down.

An historic vote in Israel.

Lawmakers Back Sharon on Plan for Leaving Gaza

Like President Bush, Ariel Sharon doesn't mind being called a murderer or a traitor today in order to defend his vision of a peaceful tomorrow.

Slate.com might as well be a Kerry campaign office. An internal poll of all their 51 employees and contributors, similar to one conducted in 2000 had the following results:

45 for Kerry; 4 for Bush; 1 for Michael Badnarik (Libertarian); and 1 for David Cobb (Green).

That being said, the reason for this disclosure is that they want to prove that they can be fair, regardless. I don't read the site often enough to know.

This has got to be the funniest comment I've read regarding the Guardian TV reviewer who wrote that he is hoping for someone to assassinate President Bush. From Mark Steyn.

In Saturday's Guardian, Charlie Brooker concluded his analysis of the presidential election thus: "On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?"

Well, wherever they are, they're probably saying: "Why bring us into it? When ol' Lee Harvey decided it was time for JFK to get assassinated, he didn't sit around whining, 'John Wilkes Booth, where are you now that I need you?' Get off your butt and do it yourself, you big Euro-pussy."

You know how the Democrats - John Edwards principal among them - were using the casualty statistics in Iraq to demonstrate to us just how the situation in Iraq is slowly deteriorating into chaos and quagmire?

I mean, the reality you and George Bush continue to tell people, first, that things are going well in Iraq -- the American people don't need us to explain this to them, they see it on their television every single day. We lost more troops in September than we lost in August; lost more in August than we lost in July; lost more in July than we lost in June.

Well, there are five days left in October, but here's how this month compares to those others.

October - 50
September - 87
August - 75
July - 58
June - 50

Let's go back to a few more bad months which I guess Edwards got too tired to mention, shall we?

May - 84
April - 140

I guess based on Democrat logic the war is turning in our favor again and Iraq is much more stable than earlier this year - and isn't that Bush's argument?

I know I just can't seem to get enough of this NY Times story on the missing explosives. I really feel deep in my heart that this is going to turn out to be a Dan Rather moment for the Editorial Staff.

Regardless of the information that has been coming out since last night that the U.S. military did go to Al-Qaqaa as fast as they could after the invasion and found nothing, the Times prints this howler.

President Bush's misbegotten invasion of Iraq appears to have achieved what Saddam Hussein did not: putting dangerous weapons in the hands of terrorists and creating an offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

First of all, the point of removing Saddam Hussein was to reduce the threat of terrorism in America, not in Iraq. Since there have been no terror attacks here since the invasion of Iraq and no proof that any of the missing explosives have been used by the terorists even in Iraq, this is just a scare tactic. There's not even proof that the terrorists have the explosives in the first place and the Times reports it as a fait accompli.

Furthermore, saying that these weapons can be used to trigger a nuclear device to is like saying that an oily rag in my garage could be used to ignite a molotov cocktail. We already know there are no nuclear weapons in Iraq, just like I have no gasoline filled bottles in my garage. Again - another scare tactic.

Finally, the Times does what so many on the Left have done and blown any potential bad news way out of proportion. The fact that we were successful in ridding Iraq of Saddam's government, closed down the rape rooms and torture chambers, and are on our way to establishing Democracy there, pales in comparison to the worry over some explosives that no one can even prove still exist and have never been used.

CBS' 60 Minutes, whose sources for previous anti-Bush pieces include those paragons of honesty Ben Barnes and Bill Burkett, were actually planning to air the false charges of "incompetence" relating to missing Iraqi explosives, first leveled by the New York Times a couple of days ago.

Just to remind you:

An NBC News crew that accompanied U.S. soldiers who seized the Al-Qaqaa base three weeks into the war in Iraq reported that troops discovered significant stockpiles of bombs, but no sign of the missing HMX and RDX explosives.

Yet it wouldn't have been right for Sinclair to broadcast Stolen Honor which would have had a much smaller audience. I'm having a hard time with the logic here - someone please help me out.

It's as if any GI Joe who blames Bush for anything that goes wrong in Iraq is a beacon of light, but Vietnam POWs don't even have the right to make their voices heard regarding John Kerry's OWN actions. All these men deserve a place of honor and respect in our society, and should be heard. I find the double standard despicable.

The New York Times undermines one of the pillars on which Bush Derangement Syndrome is based - that he is a lapdog for Evangelical Christians and shares all their beliefs.

Personal and Political, Bush's Faith Blurs Lines

On Sundays when President Bush goes to church in Washington, he chooses the 8 a.m. service at St. John's Episcopal Church Lafayette Square. A short stroll from the White House, St. John's has been the parish for many presidents, but it is still a surprising choice for Mr. Bush.

A president who has been typecast as the champion of Christian conservatives, who has proposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, finds fellowship in a church where the priest and many congregants openly support the blessing of same-sex unions....

On his personal faith, the president appears to be far from doctrinally dogmatic, and even theologically moderate. It is not hard to find evidence that he is out of sync with the conservative evangelical Christians who make up his political base.....

Evangelicals claim Mr. Bush is one of their own, but he has intentionally been vague about whether he actually shares their beliefs. In his last presidential run, Mr. Bush granted a brief telephone interview with this reporter on his faith. Asked whether he regarded the Bible as the literal and inerrant word of God, Mr. Bush said: "From Scripture you can gain a lot of strength and solace and learn life's lessons. That's what I believe, and I don't necessarily believe every single word is literally true."

Remember this is NOT an opinion piece. This is reporting.

I wonder what the truth is here.

MSNBC uses an anonymous source to back up the NY Times article which basically claims that Bush's incompetence led to the disappearance of hundreds of tons of explosives in Iraq:

At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

However, Drudge is reporting that the same news organization's reporters were there when coalition soldiers first arrived only weeks after the invasion to find that the explosives were already gone.

The way the Times reports it, you would think that we were "too busy" to even go there and that weapons are being looted right this very minute.

Kerry can get away with just calling the President "incompetent". His spokesperson get's into the real details which, should the Drudge report prove true, should be an embarassment to the Democratic Party.

“These explosives can be used to blow up airplanes, level buildings, attack our troops and detonate nuclear weapons. The Bush administration knew where this stockpile was, but took no action to secure the site. They were urgently and specifically informed that terrorists could be helping themselves to the most dangerous explosives bonanza in history, but nothing was done to prevent it from happening.

Except they haven't been used to blow up anything and it's been 18 months. Nice scare tactics. Took no action - oops, maybe he did. Terorrists? I didn't think there were any - certainly not when we invaded according to the Dems. And I thought the "insurgents" in Iraq represneted the legitimate aspirations of the Iraqi people. (Note to self - self, take tongue out of cheek). I wonder if the Times has ever used the word "terrorist" to describe those that have been attacking civilians in Iraq.

"The executions of the Iraqi soldiers on Saturday evening - and what may also have been three civilian drivers in their convoy..."

Notice how the Times leads you to the conclusion that three innocents were killed along with the "soldiers".

Also note that in the ambush that killed 50 unarmed, Iraqi men in civilian clothes, the Times uses the words "militants", "insurgents" and "guerillas". They must have a really dog-eared thesaurus in the newsroom. All they left out was "rebels" and "freedom fighters".

I'll repeat, 50 unarmed men in civilain clothes are murdered in cold blood with the clear goal to terrorize others who might join the military, and this is not terorrism according to the New York Times.

When the terrorists in Iraq chased the UN out, it was probably the best thing that ever happened for democracy in Iraq. The UN has waited FIVE YEARS to hold elections in Kosovo and it was a total disaster.

Early results from the weekend's general election showed that five years of UN rule had only deepened ethnic divisions as Kosovo's voters signalled their despair with the Balkan province's administrators.

Barely more than half of Kosovo's 1.4 million voters went to the ballot box. While the province's majority ethnic Albanians were struck by apathy, its 130,000-strong Serb minority was seized by anger and completely boycotted the poll.

Only a handful of Serbs voted, following calls from Vojislav Kostunica, the Serbian Prime Minister, and the Serbian Orthodox Church to stay away. Mr Kostunica described the election as a "failure".

The level of absenteeism prompted Soren Jessen-Petersen, the UN governor in Kosovo, to protest that some Serbs had been intimidated into observing the boycott and had "had their democratic right to vote hijacked".

The U.N. is not the only one to blame though. It is a legacy of the Democrat's policy in that region of leaving the dirty work to our "allies". Sounds like Kerry's plan for Iraq.

A trio of cowpkes wait their turn as well...

Now it's time to start posting some serious work. This horse was waiting it's turn outside a rodeo at the Fort Worth Coliseum.

Shades of Cambodia - Kerry tells the American people about meetings that he never had with members of the U.N. Security Council.

U.N. ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the U.N. Security Council just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq....

At the second presidential debate earlier this month, Mr. Kerry said he was more attuned to international concerns on Iraq than President Bush, citing his meeting with the entire Security Council.
"This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable," Mr. Kerry said of the Iraqi dictator.
Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the "real readiness" of the United Nations to "take this seriously" because he met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."
But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either.

Let's do the math.

Polls are showing that twice as many African-Americans might vote for Bush this time around.

Black voters are crucial for Democrats, and the party has been seeking to galvanize them in record numbers this year. But the urgency, with just over a week left in a breathtakingly close race, is also driven by recent polls showing President Bush's support among African-Americans may be double the 8 percent he won in 2000.

Meanwhile, 5% more Jews might vote for Bush than in 2000.

In a national poll of Jewish voters released Tuesday (Sept. 21) by the American Jewish Committee, Kerry had 69 percent to Bush's 24 percent with 3 percent backing Ralph Nader. Bush received 19 percent of the Jewish vote in 2000, according to exit polls.

According to Gallup, at least back in July, Bush is gaining in the Hispanic community.

In the presidential contest, John Kerry enjoys a 17- to 19-point lead among Hispanics, though that is still significantly below former Vice President Al Gore's 27-point margin of victory among Hispanics in the 2000 election.

Fewer women (more than half the electorate) will be voting Democratic.

Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, whose most recent (ed. - article is from 9/23/04) bipartisan Battleground 2004 poll shows Kerry leading Bush among women by four percentage points....In the 2000 presidential cliffhanger, Al Gore had an 11-point edge over Bush among women

And since this is so important a voting bloc, a second source to confirm:

A Sept. 21 poll by Investor's Business Daily showed the gender gap narrowing. The poll showed Kerry leading Bush 44 percent to 40 percent among women

So if Bush is gaining with Blacks, Jews, Hispanics and Women, how is it that the national polls show the race as being so close?

After doing this research, I'm starting to convince myself that maybe this election won't be as close as everyone thinks.

Another Republican campaign office, this time in Oregon, has been vandalized. Maybe this is taken out of context, but the Democrat's repsonse sure doesn't sound like he's really sorry.

Patrick Donaldson, volunteer chairman of the Bush campaign in Multnomah County, said the broken windows, discovered early in the morning, follow weeks of harassment, including threatening phone calls and people walking into the office and ripping up signs.

"Any Bush supporter will tell you the various levels of disdain from co-workers and complete strangers when they assert they're Republican, that level of disdain was nowhere near this in 2000," Donaldson said. "I'm not saying we are without fault, but these efforts to try to intimidate us and frighten us . . . it really upsets me."

Oregon Democratic Party officials said they do not condone smashing the windows of Republican offices and discourage such acts.

"But the fact is that the reason the Republican Party is feigning righteous indignation is because they don't want to talk about the 30,000 jobs lost and the 180,000 Oregonians who have lost health care," said Neel Pender, executive director of the state Democratic Party.

Huh?

The Austin American-Statesman gives a reluctant nod to President Bush for re-election. I'm not sure what the newspaper's general leanings are, but I know that Austin has a relatively liberal population (i.e. lively arts community) based around the University of Texas.

Bush's resolve and commitment to stay the course are clear. As Winston Churchill once said, "When you're going through hell, keep going."

Mark Steyn on John Kerry's hunt for the bogeyman.

As for this Bush-failed-to-get-bin-Laden business, 2-1/2 years ago I declared that Osama was dead and he's never written to complain. There's no more evidence for his present existence than there is for the Loch Ness monster, which at least does us the courtesy of showing up as a indistinct gray blur on a photograph every now and again. Osama is lying low because he's in no condition to get up.

But, even if he weren't, that's a frivolous reductive way of looking at this war. He's not a general or head of state; he can't sign an instrument of surrender, and make all the unpleasantness go away. The enemy is an ideology that appeals to various loose groupings from the Balkans to Indonesia, as well as to entrepreneurial free-lancers like the shooter who killed two people at LAX on July 4, 2002. If Kerry's oft-repeated "outsourcing Osama" crack is genuinely felt, it shows he doesn't get this war. And, if it's just cheapo point scoring, it's pathetic.

Or as our fearless leader once proclaimed after asked whether Osama is dead or alive - he's "certainly not leading any parades these days."

I feel very sorry for Kerry supporters since they've been deluded by the Democrat's campaign into thinking that Bush is deluded. Let's have a little reality check on Iraq - shall we?

U.N. Official: Iraq Election 'On Track'- from the Associate Press today.

Preparations for the crucial January election are "on track" and the absence of international observers due to the country's tenuous security should not detract from the vote's credibility, the top U.N. electoral expert here said.

"the top" - as in no one higher
"U.N." - the arbiter of all that is just and right in the world per Kerry
"electoral expert" - this is the man's main focus in life

This comment isn't from "a U.N. official" or "an unnamed source". This is the one person in the world who is supposed to know more about this than anyone in the world.

But go ahead - listen to Kerry - a man who's been to Iraq fewer times than Sean Penn.

"There was no persuasive moral case against the Iraq war."

When Norman Geras speaks, everyone should listen. His post must be read in it's entirety.

Very nice. From the UK Guardian. In the TV section(!)

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

I beleive in freedom of the press, but openly calling for the assassination of any country's leader is, at the very least, not nice.

I do like this comment I found on Instapundit relating to this story.

"...if you need a reason to vote for Bush, that it will make people like this miserable for four years surely ought to be enough."

The New York Times TV critic, doesn't think the "anti-Kerry" film Stolen Honor should be shown by Sinclair....only.

"It should be shown in its entirety on all the networks, cable stations and on public television."

Too bad the Democrats only allow John Kerry's friends to speak about their Vietnam memories. Everyone else is silenced by threats of lawsuits or boycotts.

I will grant you that this statement may have been taken out of context, but in an article relating to Kerry's goin' huntin', his press secretary had this to say.

Kerry is simply doing the things he loves in the final days of the campaign.



Either he really does enjoy hunting which is despicable to me, or he just killed an animal in order to get elected, which is despicable to me.

I think Kerry has got the right to bear arms confused with the rightness of killing animals for sport. I hope that he at least donated the geese somehow to charity.

Even I must admit, this is not a good sign...

Leading Economic Indicator Index Declines

Although this is hopeful....

Jobless Claims Dip; Labor Recovery Growing

I can't believe that the Kerry campaign is making an issue of the fact that Vice President Cheney received a flu shot even though he is an elderly heart patient. Does that mean Bill Clinton is evil too?

Aside from being petty, it denies the true face of the elitists who the Democrats want to run the country. Eevn though she apologized, Theresa Heinz-Kerry made one of the most unfortunate statements I've ever heard from the wife of a political candidate.

"Well, you know, I don't know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good," Heinz Kerry said. "But I don't know that she's ever had a real job — I mean, since she's been grown up.

Regardless of how many years Laura Bush spent as a teacher and librbarian, the statement totally dismisses any woman like my wife (or any father for that matter), who chooses the self-sacrifice of staying home to raise their children instead of dumping them in day care for self-validation or material gain. (This of course does not refer to single-moms and others for whom day care is a necessity).

People who like Theresa Heinz Kerry shouldn't confuse intelligent and "honest" for smart.

See the link below for fascinating COLOR photos of France during WWI. (That's not a typo!)

Colour before its time

John Kerry's Sad List of Achievements

Wasn't he absent a lot too?

I can assure you that Tommy Franks knows more about what went on in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq than John Kerry's "supporters" will ever know combined. He was in charge of the whole operation. Please read his autobiography if you really want to understand what went on in the planning and operational stages of these wars.

On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America. He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. How did it happen? According to Mr. Kerry, we "outsourced" the job to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality.

First, take Mr. Kerry's contention that we "had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden" and that "we had him surrounded." We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir. Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.

Second, we did not "outsource" military action. We did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a mountainous, geographically difficult region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is where Afghan mujahedeen holed up for years, keeping alive their resistance to the Soviet Union. Killing and capturing Taliban and Qaeda fighters was best done by the Afghan fighters who already knew the caves and tunnels.

Third, the Afghans weren't left to do the job alone. Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes. Pakistani troops also provided significant help - as many as 100,000 sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters.


Paul Krugman even saddles Bush with imaginary policy decisions on reinstituting the draft becuase he FEELS that it's what Bush would do. His one analogy is to the tax cuts of the President's first term and the resulting deficits that Bush said would not be produced. This is a bad analogy first because Bush did keep his word as to the tx cuts, it's the result that was unforeseen. Secondly, how do you not take into account 9/11 and the subsequent response?

If I remember correctly it was a couple of Democrats who tried to reinstitute the draft recently in Congress. No one is has seriously suggested that we need a few million more people in the army.

Also, I'm finding it hard to reason with the claim that our forces are stretched too thin (versus the idea that we may not have enough people in Iraq). I have to assume that using all those guard units is a tactical decision. Didn't we have about twice as many people over there in '91? Where did they all go? As General Franks mentioned there are only about 10,000 troops in Afghanistan. If we didn't have enough troops to take on Iraq properly to begin with, we've got a lot more problems than we think. This also means by default that Clinton weakened our armed forces terribly since the first Gulf War.

It's obviously OK for a newspaper to present their opinion on the editorial pages, but it's another to accuse one party of being the cause of their angst and ignoring the misdeeds of the opposing party.

Allegations of Electoral Crimes

This editorial goes into alleged misdeeds by a voter registration group paid for (in part?, entirely?) by the Republican National Committee. For anyone who's followed the story on the internet, this has become "proof" that Republicans are ready to steal the election "again".

However, there are plenty of cases of Democrats/leftists trying to affect the election illegaly as well.

ACORN Voter Registration Fraud Allegations Are Just the Tip of the Iceberg

Also see here for links to about 30 examples of voter fraud and violence directed towards Republican efforts by various Democratic/leftist groups.

Cataloging voter fraud and political violence and vandalism

It's still possible that Republicans as a whole are perpetrating more voter fraud than Democrats, but that's not the point.

The fact that the Times singles out one allegedly rogue operation of a Republican is unfair.

This about sums it up for me. The Rabbi Hillel argument for voting for Bush.

A Jewish liberal New Yorker on why she is voting for Bush

More proof that John Kerry is pitching fantasy plans to the electorate. (And I'm not talking about John Edwards' claims that no one will need to be paralyzed if Kerry becomes president).

Canada deals blow to cheap US drug imports

More than 30 Canadian internet pharmacies have decided not to accept bulk orders of prescription drugs from US states and municipalities.

The move delivers a potentially serious setback to US politicians most notably Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry campaigning to give Americans easier access to cheap drugs from Canada.

Mr Kerry has argued that opening the US to Canadian imports could help lower the costs of prescription drugs for elderly Americans. Such reimportation has become one of the points of difference between him and President George W. Bush during the election campaign.

But growing concern in Canada that growing exports to the US could lead to rising prices and shortages north of the border has prompted the Canadian International Pharmacy Association (Cipa), whose members include several of the biggest internet and mail-order drugstores , to act. “We don't want to give Americans the impression that we have unlimited supply for them to tap into on a commercial basis,” said David Mackay, the association's executive director. Americans, he added, “can't get everything from Canada. We can't be your complete drugstore”.

Maybe people are finally catching on, which explains this...

Bush surges in poll

President Bush surged to an eight-point lead over Democratic challenger John Kerry in the latest USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup national poll, giving the president a tie for his largest margin of the year with just more than two weeks left until Election Day.

Needless to say, CNN had the headline, "Poll: Presidential race still tight" even though they co-sponsored the same poll. The race may still be "tight" but that certainly is not the big story behond the numbers.

Michelle Malkin: “John Kerry stooped to the lowest of the low with the shameless, invasive line that will be played over and over again on the news in the next 24 hours:

And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney’s daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she’s being who she was, she’s being who she was born as.

"Um, has John Kerry talked to Dick Cheney’s daughter? Has John Edwards? Has Mary Beth Cahill, who called Mary Cheney ‘fair game’ on Fox News Channel after tonight’s debate? If they haven’t talked to her, they should shut up, leave her alone, and defend their incoherent position on gay marriage without hiding behind the vice president’s daughter.”

Mary Cheney's mom isn't too happy either.

These are from a very funny "what they really meant at the debate" site I found at Instapundit.

Q: Sen. Kerry, how are you gonna pay for all this stuff you’re proposing?

Kerry: We’ll pay as we go. Oh, and we’ll tax the rich. Those bastards.

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

Kerry: I vote for tax cuts all the time. It was me and Reagan, baby.

The New York Times already has a transcript of tonight's pesidential debate up, and since I'm on the road, I have a little bit of time on my hands.

I already commented on Zarq's page that tonight's debate would be a tedious exercise of trying to separate factual numbers from fiction. Nevertheless, as I watched I thought that some of John Kerry's numbers were particularly dubious, so I thought I'd comment below.

"He's also the only president in 72 years to lose jobs -- 1.6 million jobs lost." - The real number is closer to 600,000 and there are four months to go in the Bush presidency with jobs growing at approximately 100,000 a month. Remember when Kerry used to talk about 3 million jobs lost...then it was 2 million jobs lost....


"Tuitions have gone up 35 percent." - According to The College Board from the 2000-01 school year to the 2003-04 school year tuition and fees (in real dollars) has increased 10% at 2 year public schools, 15% at 4 year private schools and 28% at 4 year public schools. None of it is good, but none of them are 35% either.

"Medicare premiums went up 17 percent a few days ago." - That's true as far as it goes, however Senator Kerry was directly responsible for the increase so blaming it on Bush is unfair.

Republicans said the increase in premiums was automatic, and they attributed it to a formula over which the White House had no control. Moreover, they pointed out that Mr. Kerry had voted for the law that established the formula in 1997 as a way to bolster the finances of Medicare.

"The jobs that are being created in Arizona right now are paying about $13,700 less than the jobs that we're losing." - I'm not sure where this comes from, but a much lower number of $9,000 that he has used as a national figure was debunked a long time ago.

"They've cut the Pell Grants..." - I don't know where that came from. The House Budget Committee shows drastic increases.

"...and the Perkins Loans" - The Bush administration didn't cut this program, they just decided not to increase it past it's current levels. Reasons why are included in the link.

"Health care costs for the average American have gone up 64 percent." - Thos could very well be true based on some initial research I did which is why I din't comment on it earlier in this post. However, I just read one of the moderator's questions to Bush a little later on in the debate - "Health insurance costs have risen over 36 percent over the last four years, according to The Washington Post." It's still significant, but that's a pretty big difference.

"But rather than help you, the taxpayer, have lower costs, rather than help seniors have less expensive drugs, the president made it illegal, illegal for Medicare to actually go out and bargain for lower prices. Result, $139 billion windfall profit to the drug companies coming out of your pockets. That's a large part of your 17 percent increase in Medicare premiums." - Here Kerry blames Bush again for an increase of his doing.

"Now maybe that explains why he hasn't fully funded the V.A., and the V.A. hospital is having trouble and veterans are complaining." - The fact is that Bush has increased funding of the V.A., and at more than twice the rate of the Clinton administration - up 38% in four years.

"Under President Bush the middle class has seen their tax burden go up and the wealthiest tax burden has gone down. Now that's wrong." I don't think he means tax burden, I think he means share of the tax burden (which only changed by a few tenths of a percent). Everyone got tax cuts.

"One percent of America got $89 billion last year in a tax cut." - This analysis by the Citizens for Tax Justice shows that last year, 2003, the top one percent received $15 billion. Even adding all the years from 2001-2005, the estimate is $86 billion, just short of Kerry's number.

"Women work for 76 cents on the dollar for the same work that men do. That's not right in America. And we had an initiative that we were working on to raise women's pay. They've cut it off. They've stopped it. They don't enforce these kinds of things." - Women's earnings at 76 cents on the dollar are higher during the Bush administration than any time in history and has consistently remained several cents higher than during the best years of the Clinton administration.

"I don't know how you can govern in this country when you look at New York City and you see that 50 percent of the black males there are unemployed." - This is my favorite one. This 50 percent number is not the unemployment rate, but a measure of the percent of the adult male population that is not currently working. By the same measure, 25 percent of white males are unemployed in New York City. All these figures are about 4 times the actual unemployment rate for each category.

There's probably somemore, but I'm too tired to go on.

Very funny. The only problem is that the people it's directed to take it seriously. I haven't seen anything like this on the Republican Jewish Coalition website - and I'm sort of glad.

Did you know...Berlin was already providing financial assistance to Iraq and training Iraqi troops and police officers in the United Arab Emirates.

I was under the impression that Germany was not assisting us with Iraq at all. Does that mean their involvement doesn't count because their soldiers aren't at risk "in country"?

I think I'll listen to the Nobel Prize Winner in Economics (specifically won for his work on deconstructing the business cycle) who says that not only were Bush's tax cuts good for the economy, but he didn't go far enough!

Edward Prescott, who picked up the Nobel Prize for Economics, said President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s tax rate cuts were "pretty small" and should have been bigger.

"What Bush has done has been not very big, it's pretty small," Prescott told CNBC financial news television.

"Tax rates were not cut enough," he said.

Lower tax rates provided an incentive to work, Prescott said.

How low can you go? John Edwards politicizes the death of Christopher Reeve. As reported on the Drudge Report:

'When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again'...

Senator Kerry, we'd like to clarify your position on Iraq....

KERRY: Well, let me tell you straight up: I've never changed my mind about Iraq. I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat. I always believed he was a threat. Believed it in 1998 when Clinton was president. I wanted to give Clinton the power to use force if necessary.

But I would have used that force wisely, I would have used that authority wisely, not rushed to war without a plan to win the peace.

- From the Second Presdiential Debate - October 8, 2004

JACOBS: Yes, Randee.

Iran sponsors terrorism and has missiles capable of hitting Israel and southern Europe. Iran will have nuclear weapons in two to three years time.

In the event that U.N. sanctions don't stop this threat, what will you do as president?

KERRY: I don't think you can just rely on U.N. sanctions, Randee. But you're absolutely correct, it is a threat, it's a huge threat.

And what's interesting is, it's a threat that has grown while the president has been preoccupied with Iraq, where there wasn't a threat.

- From the Second Presdiential Debate (a ew minutes later) - October 8, 2004

Mondays are depressing, but this particular Monday's even more so.

Christopher Reeve, 'Superman' Star, Dies at 52

I'm more than a bird. I'm more than a plane
More than some pretty face beside a train
It's not easy to be me
- 'Superman' by Five for Fighting

Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation

New JibJab Video here. Hilarious.

I think this paragraph from today's NYT Magazine article on John Kerry hits the nail on the head.

What Kerry still has not done is to articulate clearly a larger foreign-policy vision, his own overarching alternative to Bush's global war on terror. The difference between the two men was clear during the foreign-policy debate in Florida 10 days ago. Kerry seemed dominant for much of the exchange, making clear arguments on a range of specific challenges -- the war in Iraq, negotiations with North Korea, relations with Russia. But while Kerry bore in on ground-level details, Bush, in defending his policies, seemed, characteristically, to be looking at the world from a much higher altitude, repeating in his brief and sometimes agitated statements a single unifying worldview: America is the world's great force for freedom, unsparing in its use of pre-emptive might and unstinting in its determination to stamp out tyranny and terrorism. Kerry seemed to offer no grand thematic equivalent.

I know this is facetious, but Bush supporters like me are like the proverbial woman who gets upset with their husbands who lose their way on the road. We're upset that our husband is too stubborn to ask for directions, but we know that ultimately we'll get there, albeit a little embarrassed.

Kerry doesn't seem to know that weve actually got a destination. You can have the maps, a first-aid kit and a full tank of gas, but it's meaningless unless you've got somewhere to go.

I didn't even see this from the same article until Drudge pointed it out:

"We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance..."

The author of the article gamely compares this idea to prostitution or mafia-based crime, something that we can adequately control without ruining everyone's lives. The only problem with that analogy is that one successful act of terrorism can kill or injure thousands of people. I think we have to take this a little more seriously.

Good news roundup for today:

John Howard won re-election in Australia "convinvcingly" in what was widely seen as a referendum on his support for the invasion of Iraq. Considering that Austalia has suffered via the Bali bombings and the bombing of one of their embassies recently, it shows that the majority are willing to risk further attack for an ideal.

As a further rebuke to the naysayers who thought it couldn't be done, Afghanistan held it's first elections today. So far, not one significant incident of violence in the land that John Kerry says is controlled by warlords and druglords. And I don't want to hear any crap about the fact that the elctions were't perfect because if I remember correctly, we're having some problems here ourselves after 225 years of experience and having the world's most advanced technology.

I can't believe the NY Times dedicated space to the loony left wing conspiracy theory of the "bulge" in Bush's suit jacket that appeared during the first presidential debate. They don't even really call it a crazy idea, and makes it seem like the White House has something to hide.

I didn't see anything regarding the right wing blog's reporting of Kerry taking something from his jacket at the first debate. Although the initial right-wing conspiracy theory that it was a piece of paper or note cards to cheat was debunked, it was shown to be a pen which wasn't allowed by the rules either. No coverage from the Times on that one.

Today is Simchat Torah and I'd like to wish everyone a Chag Sameach (Happy Holiday).

Last night I got home from work exhausted still trying to recover after a two day business trip from which I didn't get home until about midnight Tuesday night. I was kind of hoping my parents or my wife would take our four year old daughter to services for the Simchat Torah festivities in our synagogue. Unfortunately for me, my wife had a rough day with both kids and my mom was determined to drag me out because the little one had to go - how could we not take her! There'd be singing and dancing and food...Oh, OK I said preparing to fall asleep while everyone else was enjoying.

As the torahs were brought down to the congregation and the singing and dancing started, I started to think of those people who were killed that very evening in Egypt - targeted because they were Israelis/Jews. In fact, I would bet that any Israeli who would go to Egypt to celebrate a Jewish holiday that for the Orthodox entails going to synagogue, not using electricity etc., is not in favor of the occupation.

That being said, I asked myself what right did I have not to be ecstatic that I was safe, my family was with me and that we are all (thank G-d) healthy. And even though we were inside our synagogue, the door to the sanctuary was open which can be seen from the street through the glass doors at the entrance to the synagogue. I became determined to show that I am not only happy, I am proud to be Jewish and proud of my religion and what it stands for.

So I took a shot of vodka, grabbed a torah and danced and sang as joyfully and as loudly as I could, singing a song that has been echoed throughout the generations by my people even though there have always been those out to destroy us - millions of people who would rather see my family and I dead than alive because of who we are - Am Yisrael Chai! I sang over and over. The People of Israel Live!

In Iraq, unfortunately, a friend of a friend is still an enemy. Not a surprise, just sad.

Iraqi Indicted for Proposal to Open Talks With Israel

Wouldn't it be great if an eventual Iraqi democracy (or group of Arab democracies) can be a voice of moderation in negotiating a peace between Israel and the Palestinians?

I can dream, can't I?

Self deprecating humor, while stinging your opponent, always works...

THE PRESIDENT: The nonpartisan National Journal analyzed his record and named John Kerry the most liberal member of the United States Senate.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: And when the competition includes Ted Kennedy, that's really saying something. (Laughter and applause.) I'm telling you, I know that bunch. (Laughter.) It wasn't easy for my opponent to become the single most liberal member of the Senate. You might even say, it was hard work. (Laughter and applause.)

More props to Israel - two Israelis get Nobel prizes for science. I am proud of my people today.

Two Israelis and an American won the Nobel Prize in chemistry Wednesday for showing how cells can give a ``kiss of death'' to destroy unwanted proteins, a finding that could help scientists find new medicines for cancer and other diseases. The award marks the first time an Israeli has won a Nobel science prize.

If you want to know more about how modern and advanced Israel truly is, you should go to Israel21c - a site I don't visit nearly often enough - it's always uplifiting.

John Edwards - or should we call him John Kerry the Younger?

MATTHEWS: . . . Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?
EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage. And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.
MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?
EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.
MATTHEWS: You believe in that?
EDWARDS: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?
EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern. So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.
MATTHEWS: Did you get an honest reading on the intelligence?
EDWRADS: But now we’re getting to the second part of your question. I think we have to get to the bottom of this. I think there’s clear inconsistency between what’s been found in Iraq and what we were told. And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn’t just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.
MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?
EDWARDS: It wouldn’t change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

Please read "Deterence" at Bill Whittle's site.

After reading it, pretend you woke up today, don't know how we got here, and explain to me why you believe the changes that John Kerry wants to make will keep us safer.

And when John Kerry refocuses our efforts and captures Osama bin Laden, then what? back to summit meetings, resolutions without teeth and sanctions that cause sufferings while those in power gain more control over scarce resources. Maybe the French, Germans and Russians will buy us dinner with some of the money they've stolen from the Iraqis.

The best parts IMO:

An alliance of European powers is a chimera that no longer holds any significant value. That is a critical point. It is an essential point of delusion embedded in Senator Kerry’s world view. He waits for rescue from a knight long dead and moldering, sitting beneath a withered oak tree in rusted armor....

As a deterrent, I honestly and regretfully don’t think our terrorist enemies are much deterred by the thought of dying. I think they are fully ready to die. People who are fully ready to die in order to kill you and your family, who are undeterred by death, are likely not to be terribly concerned by the thought of being isolated in a more sensitive approach to John Kerry’s sworn mission to hunt down, and isolate, chastise and severely reprimand terrorists.

Terrorists don’t seem to be too afraid of stern language. But I do notice, that while the fear of death does not seem to deter these people, the fact of being dead does significantly decrease their operational effectiveness. That’s a casual observation on my part – no real Harvard study to back it up. More of a hunch, really.

Wouldn't this be illegal or something?

PRO-KERRY FORCES INVADE GOP VICTORY CENTER

More than 50 demonstrators supporting Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry stormed a Republican campaign office in West Allis at mid-day today, trespassing, creating a disturbance through the use of a bullhorn in the office and then refusing to leave when asked.

There seems to be a trend in Wisconsin:

Graber called the latest incident part of a disturbing trend of criminal conduct by anti-Bush forces in Wisconsin, pointing to an incident in Madison last week in which Bush-Cheney yard signs were stolen from the yards of three homes. The vandals then used chemicals to burn swastikas into the lawns of the homes, which were within a two-block radius of one another.

In addition, reports of stolen, defaced and damaged Bush-Cheney campaign signs are surfacing throughout Wisconsin.

There go those conservatives, oops I mean liberals, defenders of free speech.

Then again, why just make noise when it's much more fun to destroy stuff!

Protestors Storm, Ransack Bush-Cheney Headquarters In Orlando

A group of protestors stormed and then ransacked a Bush-Cheney headquarters building in Orlando, Fla., Tuesday, according to Local 6 News.

Local 6 News reported that several people from the group of 100 Orlando protestors face possible assault charges after the group forced their way inside the Republican headquarters office.

If you watch the video news report you'll see that 20 similar protests were planned and they have footage of a similar disturbance in Miami.

You can also see my posts below about some recent random shootings into Bush-Cheny campaign offices.

When Bush was talking about the expected increase in violence before the elections, I thought he was talking about Afghanistan and Iraq!

The reason you don't see me commenting too much, if at all, on the Vice Presidential debate last night is because I'm generally frustrated by the lies propogated by both sides. What's the sense in criticizing Edwards when someone can criticize Cheney right back?

**frustrated** :-(

I just started thinking seriously about getting a satellite radio setup becuase I travel an awful lot and who likes hearing those same commericals over and over again.
I was leaning towards Sirius versus XM pirmarily becuase of the sports, but now I am actually excited about getting Sirius.

Howard Stern signs deal with Sirius

Good for him! But now how is he going to be able to complain about the management?

Someone (and you know who you are) tried to convince my in a smooth, Kerry-like way that Poland had announce that it was withdrawing it's troops from Iraq because they were angry at having been lied to by the Bush administration about Iraq's WMDs.

Not really.

Here is an article about the troop withdrawal, which basically says that they are planning a withdrawal at the end of 2005 to coincide with UN resolutions on deployment and that troops will remain beyond that if needed. The article also mentions several times that Poland's poltical parties that support troop involvement are actually expected to win in upcoming elections.

And if that doesn't convince you of Poland's support for Bush's policies, read this to find out how pissed off Poland is at John Kerry.

POLISH PRESIDENT SLAMS KERRY AFTER DEBATE SNUB

There go those Republicans, trying to suppress the voice of the people! They can't shut us up! Bushhitler will not silence us!

Wait a minute - that wasn't them. Oops, my mistake.

Swastika Burned Into Grass On Bush-Cheney Supporter's Lawn

Someone burned an 8-foot-by-8-foot Nazi swastika on a home's lawn near where Bush-Cheney signs were posted. The vandals used grass killer to spray the symbol.

Several nearby homes were vandalized -- all were within a two-block radius on the West Side, near Ice Age Trail, News 3 reported.

I knew, deep in my heart of hearts, that John Kerry's story about Charles DeGaulle was phony on some level. Actually, it was untrue on many levels - who was sent, what DeGaulle actually said and did and the fact that we were providing evidence of Cuban missiles, not before but AFTER we had already acted unilaterally.

So Kerry basically made up some facts before suggesting that no one in their right mind should trust President Bush. And do you really think he just thought of that fairy tale and misspoke, or did he bring that story with him anticipating the question about trust?

Thanks to Hugh Hewitt for doing the research.

The Upper West Side of Manhattan just isn't safe anymore for Republicans. But then again, was it ever?

GRANNY IN BUSH WHACK

An Upper West Side woman says she was am-Bushed by a cane-wielding 86-year-old woman who apparently isn't fond of the president.
Linda Fuda, 62, told The Post she was waiting in the lobby of a friend's Central Park West building yesterday carrying a Bush/Cheney sign and bumper stickers when Ruth Spitz, who was also in the lobby, suddenly accosted her.

Spitz told her "get out of here with that trash, you don't belong here," Fuda said.

Fuda answered, "It's not your building, it's everyone's building," at which point, she says, Spitz ripped the sign and threw it down.

"I bent down to pick it up, and she hit my backside with her cane and then she tried to push me out the door." Fuda said.

Of course there are conflicting views of the events...

Reached at her apartment last night, Spitz said she'd been in the lobby waiting for her dinner companions and acknowledged asking Fuda to leave.

But she insisted she never hit her with the cane or ripped the sign.

Yes my friends, if you're looking to abrogate free speech rights, at least be polite!

Just remember that these are exactly the people that John Kerry wants to administer the Global Test that we should have passed for action in Iraq.

A leaked report has exposed the extent of alleged corruption in the United Nations’ oil-for-food scheme in Iraq, identifying up to 200 individuals and companies that made profits running into hundreds of millions of pounds from it. The report largely implicates France and Russia, whom Saddam Hussein targeted as he sought support on the UN Security Council before the Iraq war. Both countries were influential voices against UN-backed action.

Is the genocide in Darfur a story made up by the US just like Iraqi WMDs. Some seem to think so. The theory is that we don't like the Sudanese government and are hyping the situation over there to get the international community to act against it.

US 'hyping' Darfur genocide fears

'I've been to a number of camps during my time here,' said one aid worker, 'and if you want to find death, you have to go looking for it. It's easy to find very sick and under-nourished children at the therapeutic feeding centres, but that's the same wherever you go in Africa.'

Note of Warning - when reading anything in the Guardian it is best to wear environmental hazard gear.

Unfortunately, I haven't been following the situation there closely enough to claim to understand what's really going on there. But then again, this is how Holocaust deniers work their magic too - tell the uneducated, who didn't know what happened anyway, that nothing happened.

A report from Afghanistan - more catastrophic success.

With Taliban's fall, Afghans see dramatic changes in life

and here:

The Din of Democracy is Driving Out the Silence of the Imams

I don't know that I need to spend much time defending the Zionist vision against the rantings of the legal representative of the PLO, but there is one line in today's opinion piece in the NY Times - Two Peoples, One State - that underlines the lack of understanding on the part of the Palestinian leadership (if they truly believe this to begin with).

Most Israelis recoil at the thought of giving Palestinians equal rights, understandably fearing that a possible Palestinian majority will treat Jews the way Jews have treated Palestinians.

Most Israelis don't want to live in a country with a Palestinian majority because they don't want Jews to be treated as they have been in every other Muslim Arab country, not because they would expect some kind of unique vengeance on the part of the Palestinians.

And when he uses the word "understandably" instead of "irrational" he's basically predicting that it would not be pleasant for the Jews sharing the same state - so why would they ever want to do it?

This Iraqi police captain must not be getting the message from the Kerry campaign.

Capt. Fouad Hadi barked orders. Several officers pushed the car across the lot. "It's all up to our God," the captain said, a walkie-talkie crackling in one hand. "Our spirits are still high. The attacks on us give us more motivation to fight the thugs and outlaws."

What do you think this man - taking responsibility for his country's future - wants to hear from the U.S. President:

a) We'll be with you as long as you need us.

OR

b) We're getting the hell out as soon as you give the OK.

This may in fact be the exact same day - but the message is much different.

I have to be honest - my dislike of John Kerry's sleaziness is about to explode in a rage of Bush-hatred sized proportions.

How much chutzpah does it take to make this statement, as Kerry did when answering Jim Leherer's question the other night about whether he ever called Bush a liar - "I've never, ever used the harshest word, as you did just then," Kerry said. "And I try not to, but I'll nevertheless tell you that I think he has not been candid with the American people."

So morally courageous. So gracious. Such an upsatnding citizen. Such utter bullshit.

"George Bush lost the debate," an announcer says in a television ad Kerry's campaign unveiled Saturday. "Now he's lying about it."

You can see two separate examples of Kerry's previous use of the word "lied" in reference to Bush and his administration here.

Kerry also told a New Hampshire newspaper editorial board Friday that Bush had 'lied' about his reasons for going to war in Iraq, a word Kerry has been reluctant to use publicly for months.

This administration has lied to us. They have misled us. And they have broken their promises to us.

My spirits are starting to rise as I think that word is getting out about the B.S. that Kerry was spouting, admittedly with great style, during the first debate.

Agree or disagree, you know where Bush stands on foreign policy whether you're an ally or an enemy. If you're a Kerry supporter, I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with a definition of what Kerry stands for. You know what he won't do (commit troops somewhere without approval from France and China), but you don't really know what he's willing to do. It totally depends on which way the wind's blowing. If Bush the Father was criticized for a lack of the "vision thing" in a time of peace, why should Kerry be off the hook in a time of war?

Richard Holbrooke, a foreign policy adviser to Kerry, said Kerry was stating long-standing United States policy, which is that "you don't give up the right to be preemptive, but you make sure the decisions you've made can be backed up by the facts and have support domestically and internationally."

The statements by Bush and the new ad are themselves a sort of preemption, in which Bush is trying to define an overall foreign policy for Kerry. Asked what the Kerry Doctrine actually is, Holbrooke, in a conference call with reporters, replied: "There is no Kerry Doctrine."

In any case, it bothers me that Kerry's trying to convince the American people that he's so slick that he's going to single-handedly convince other nations to go against their national interests becuase we're sorry for being mean.

In his own words - "I've worked with those leaders the president talks about, I've worked with them for 20 years, for longer than this president. And I know what many of them say today, and I know how to bring them back to the table."

Well, Iran has just given "JFK 2" the middle finger.

Iran Rebuffs Kerry Nuclear Proposal

Foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said it would be "irrational" for Iran to put its nuclear program in jeopardy by relying on supplies from abroad.

And the Germans and French have already told us not to expect any help.

No French or German turn on Iraq (from the Finanical Times)

French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, is elected on November 2.

Kerry's apparently ready to piss off the Chinese, becuase he wants to go it alone (!?!) in talks with North Korea.

Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, standing at his side, said the "entire international community" agreed that the six-nation approach was the best way to deal with the problem.

I don't think I need to elaborate on what leaders like Allawi in Iraq and those of the coalition members think of Kerry after his campaign called Allawi a puppet and our allies (that he has criticized for not contributing enough to begin with as it is) a coaltion of the bribed and coerced.

And when all is said and done, I would rather be friends with Britain, Australia (and yes, Poland) before I would shake hands with France, Germany and Russia each of whom would like to see American power weakened.

Now I'm mad :-{

Some positive news on the overall situation in Afghanistan. I sitll don't see why the same won't be said of Iraq about a year or so from now.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan

The returning refugees may stretch the infrastructure but they are the surest sign that people have regained hope at last. There are executions of foreign aid workers, armed clashes on the unruly border with Pakistan, and even car and suicide bombs of apparently increasing sophistication. But we will misjudge the dynamic if we fail to keep things in perspective. Tens of thousands of people died in this country every month in the 1980s during the war with the Soviet Union and it wasn't news. Hundreds died every month in the 1990s from mines and the civil war and that wasn't really news either. Today, casualties are in the dozens most months, and suddenly it is news, taken by some as evidence of imminent collapse. For the first time in a quarter century, more Afghans are now dying in car accidents than in politically motivated violence--a miracle, even allowing for atrocious Afghan driving.

Study up on Kerry's position and then take the test.

LEHRER: New question. Two minutes, Senator Kerry.

What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war?

KERRY: The president always has the right, and always has had the right, for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the Cold War. And it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control.

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that 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.

Here's the test.

Seems like a pretty straightforward case of President Bush and his administration misleading the American people...

Skewed Intelligence Data in March to War in Iraq

However, being the right-wing nut job that I am, I must find something to criticize. The only thing I can come up with is that the Times is front-paging this story for the same reason CBS started their National Guard onslaught after the Republican convention even though the story was researched in depth in both 2000 and earlier this year. That is, it's not that this is "news", it's the desire to remind people of the worst of President Bush's mistakes (just in case someone agreed with him in the foreign policy debate).

It took me all of about two minutes to find this document on the internet - The CIA's Aluminum Tubes' Assessment: Is the Nuclear Case Going Down the Tubes? - which was written back in March 2003 with a lot of the same details that the Times reports. For a minute, I actually believed that their reporters spent weeks or months digging up some super classified, never-before-disclosed-to-the-public information.

All I can say is that it's a shame we didn't know about the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars that Saddam was getting via the French and Russians from the oil-for-food program. Then we wouldn't have had to make Saddam's weapon program an issue. It would have been enough to say that he harbors and financially supports terrorists and had enough money to buy already made weapons if they became available. We know he had the money and we know the weapons materials are out there because John Kerry pretty much said that it would take him at least four years to find everything from the ex-Soviet Union alone.

Therefore, my opinion is that we went in to Iraq for the right reasons, but the wrong excuse. If people didn't oppose Bush before the war then it's because they were too lazy or too busy underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

I'm looking forward to what the real right-wing bloggers have to say about this.

Coming from a religion (Judaism) that has certain "leadership" organizations, but no governing body, it's hard for me to imagine entire churches taking a political stand which punishes those doing business with Israel. Or as one Reform Jewish leader puts it, "There's a certain moral blindness here that's very hard for me to understand".

Episcopal Church May Probe Israel Business

An Episcopal committee angered Jewish leaders Friday by recommending that the church research taking action against companies involved in the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.

The Episcopal Socially Responsible Investment panel announced its decision days after Jewish leaders met with another Protestant denomination, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), to protest its decision to pursue divesting from some companies with ties to the occupation.....

The investment committee made its decision after some Anglican representatives said last week that they will recommend that the global Anglican Communion consider withdrawing investments from Israel because of what they called mistreatment of Palestinians.

If I thought that these groups had done an exhaustive analysis of the tactics of the Israeli army versus the tactics of the Palestinian resistance, perhaps I'd understand. Somehow building fences and bulldozing homes is morally repugnant while fighting and storing arms in the midst of civilians, shooting rockets indiscriminately at Jewish towns and blowing up buses is A-OK. I don't hear any condemnations of the UN from these churches as their money is used to fund schools that teach hatred and their vehicles are used for transporting terrorists and arms.

I also find it ironic that some of the latest victims of Palestinian attacks, a 2-year old and 4-year old in Sderot, were black African Jews who had probably immigrated to Israel to escape discrimination in their homeland. But then again, isn't that how most Jewish families ended up in Israel in the first place?

Remember the days when it used to be standard practice to display a photo of the President of the United States in American classrooms? Apparently, there are some people who don't think that's a good idea anymore. Did this end tradition end with Nixon?

UNDER PREZ-SURE

The controversy erupted Thursday night when a handful of parents objected to the photo during a back-to-school parent-teacher conference. Pillai-Diaz said three parents demanded the photo be removed — or complemented with a picture of Sen. John Kerry. Pillai-Diaz said she notified the assistant principal, Mark Daniels, of the brouhaha during a break in the conference and that Daniels defended her right to post the photo.

But yesterday, Pillai-Diaz said Daniels changed his tune and demanded she remove it before her first class.

"He told me that if I care about my employment at the school, I would take down the picture," she said.

When she refused, the matter was taken up by the principal, Jim Warfel, who Pillai-Diaz said accused her of "causing disruption and hatred" with her "inflammatory politics" and told her to "get out" of the building.

The potential future waffler-in-chief prepares the batter with a liberal sprinkling of the word "but" after making an otherwise firm statement of policy.

Bush and 'But'-Head

"I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But . . ."

"I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But . . ."

"We have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But . . ."

"I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence. But . . ."

"I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they've been willing to do. But . . ."

"What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders. You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But . . ."

"I couldn't agree more that the Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free. But . . ."

"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But . . ."

"I've never wavered in my life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But . . ."

Just a point brought up on a local talk radio station today. Remember when Kerry said this in the debate:

Unfortunately, he (Osama Bin Laden) escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong.

Um, isn't Kerry suggesting we outsource the war in Iraq to our "allies"?

Just a point brought up on a local talk radio station today. Remember when Kerry said this in the debate:

Unfortunately, he (Osama Bin Laden) escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The president relied on Afghan warlords and he outsourced that job too. That's wrong.

Um, isn't Kerry suggesting we outsource the war in Iraq to our "allies"?

Another 100 to 1 kill rate brought to you by the U S of A. These people are either looking for a quick ticket to Paradise or are the poorest, dumbest motherf****rs on God's green Earth. Maybe Kerry's plan to start pulling out troops gave them hope.

U.S.: 109 insurgents killed in major offensive

I will grant you this - whoever said there were only a handful of insurgents was definitely lying, because we keep killing them, or people who want to defend them, in mass quantities.

You know we keep talking about the levels of violence in Iraq and whether it will increase or subside based on the upcoming Iraqi elections. We should be taking about what affect OUR elections are going to have. I'll bet you that if Bush wins, the "common man" that might be supporting the insurgents is going to say, I ain't gonna keep fighting another 4-5 years until Giuliani or Schwarznegger get their turn at me. Game Over.

Lt. Smash calls Kerry out.

"Bullshit."

Also, before I get into it, I was thinking this morning that it was funny that all of Kerry's supporters are former military generals. Maybe there's a reason why they're working on TV and not at the Pentagon.

I also read General Tommy Franks biography a couple of weeks ago and I know Kerry's claims on diverting troops was a flat out lie. I understand Franks was interviewed shortly after the deabtes on CNN and was not happy.

Now, back to Lt. Smash.

THERE WAS A MOMENT in last night’s Presidential Debate that got me angry – and it probably wasn’t the same moment you’re thinking about right now.

KERRY: It is vital for us not to confuse the war, ever, with the warriors. That happened before. And that's one of the reasons why I believe I can get this job done, because I am determined for those soldiers and for those families, for those kids who put their lives on the line. That is noble. That's the most noble thing that anybody can do. And I want to make sure the outcome honors that nobility.

Kerry is promoting a fallacy here. You can’t completely separate the war from the warriors, because we’re the ones that plan and execute the war. Kerry would have you believe that the President has a sand table in the White House War Room, where he gathers his generals around him and commands them on how to fight the war. He’s telling us that he could do a better job directing those generals than Bush has.

Bullshit.

It's worth it to read the whole thing.

Here's a funny line from one of the comments, although I'm sure Kerry didn't quite mean it this way...

And what's with the "..we pulled our best troops out of Afghanistan to go to Iraq..." line? I'm sure that gives an absolute warm fuzzy to the people still fighting and dying in Afghanistan. Apparently Kerry thinks they're the B team.