Quick Hit
Mood:  bright
Looks like all those countries (France and Germany) love Kerry and Hate Bush. Wasn't aware that they were eligible to vote in the US. However, and more to the point, doesn't look like any of them want to help the US in Iraq, whether it is Kerry or Bush, according to the LA Times.

Lots of great info, good read. Take a gander.

However, do hate to post this paragraph:

One German newspaper, the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, suggested Europeans were in for a rude awakening if Kerry becomes president. Under the headline "The Big Kerry Illusion," the newspaper said Kerry would diverge from Bush, but any hope that he would more fully embrace the "global village" was "wishful thinking that will get a cold shower."

I do believe that they understand what the "anybody but Bush" crowd doesn't.

Kerry's Iraq Plan
John Kerry's Iraq "plan," such as it is, is sure not winning over many converts. Considering that it is really only a souped up version of President Bush's plan, it sure hasn't made any friends. His whole "I can do better" rhetoric has gone by the wayside. As has already been pointed out a few days ago, his plan is actually a step back.

And now we have the slightly liberal USA Today taking shots at his "plan."

"....But the result is that with the election just three months away, Kerry has done little to separate his views from those of President Bush."

You don't say. Looked to me like Kerry got ahold of the Presidents pre-war plans and just re-released them (Berger?).

Kerry's main difference with Bush, and one he underscores, is that he would be better able to get other countries to help by returning to a more traditional inclusiveness. Involving allies heavily in everything from reconstruction to discussions on Iraq's future, Kerry says, is the way to bring more international troops to Iraq, lessen anti-U.S. hostility and start bringing U.S. troops home

Germany has already said "no way, no matter who is President." Spain? They have already cut and run. France? Don't even go there. That leaves Russia, who respects strength, and China. Need I say more?

The UN is already scared to become involved. And, where were all these international forces when we went into Afghanistan? No France or Germany. They said "hey, we feel bad, but you can forget any help with anythign military."

The only possible way to retain their help would be to give them a piece of the Iraq pie. Both France and Germany declined to help, defamed the United States, and were shown to have violated UN Resolutions, as well as being involved the the OFF scandal. If the only way to gain their help is to bribe them after we have already done the hard work, well, to hell with them.

Tax Code a mess?
Mood:  d'oh
H.R. 1308, Tax Relief, Simplification, and Equity Act of 2003 (Introduced in House) is just another example of how far removed the tax code is from reality, and how difficult it can be.

SEC. 503. REPEAL OF EXCISE TAX ON FISHING TACKLE BOXES.

The is a problem when the US House takes up the issue of taxing tackle boxes.

However, they did slip this nugget in:

SEC. 102. SUSPENSION OF TAX-EXEMPT STATUS OF TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.

Too bad that this has been kicked around in the House since March 2003, with no substantive progress.

Just silly
Mood:  cheeky
Will the Honorable Corrine Brown vote with this method?

Ok, so it is silly. And we do not need it in most Florida precincts. Just some of the Democratically run ones.

There goes the oil issue!
Mood:  celebratory
In an article for Stars and Stripes, John Kerry makes a major mistake, and refutes one of the Lefts major arguments about the war in Iraq:

Kerry: I think in the first war, their oil was a critical consideration, because Saddam Hussein's intent was to take over the oil fields. Jim Baker said publicly that it had something to do with what we were doing.

Stripes: But our operations in Iraq right now, no?

Kerry: No. That's not related directly to the oil ... and I never suggested that it is.

So it isn't about the oil? To use a word the Left likes quite abit, the Kerry supporters must be seeting about now.

But, of course, it never was about the oil. And, even were it about the oil, so what? Considering that the left is just as guilty as the right in driving gas guzzlers, they should want more access to oil. People have fought wars for far less reasons. Remember what started WWI?

No longer Lt(jg) Flip Flop
From the Boston Globe:

"We didn't have the patience, we didn't have the maturity, to exhaust the remedies available to us and truly build that coalition and understand the nature of the threat," Kerry said.

12 years of sanctions. 12 years of Saddam stonewalling inspector. 12 years of sanctions violations by Saddam. Etc. I would guess that Kerry has forgotten those years, similar to how he has forgotten 18+ years in the Senate. And his anti-war activities in the 70's. And forgetting to report for his Ready Reserve unit.

And how about a coalition of over 30 countries? But no France or Germany. Bummer. North Korea's army is 3 times the size of either of France or Germany's armys. Though Germans might have been good at garrison duty. The did it to the French during 2 world wars. ;)

But Rudy G. takes some good shots:

One of the president's chief surrogates on terrorism issues, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, hit back at Kerry on the Sept. 11 remarks. In addition, former Marine Corps commandant P.X. Kelley accused Kerry of "opportunism" in hammering Bush over the terrorist attacks.

In a statement, Giuliani linked Kerry's reference to the Florida classroom with filmmaker Michael Moore's anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," which used video footage from that morning to portray the president as clueless.

"John Kerry must be frustrated in his campaign if he is armchair-quarterbacking based on cues from Michael Moore," Giuliani said. "John Kerry is an indecisive candidate who has demonstrated an inconsistent position on the war on terror, who voted against funding for our troops at war, and who cannot give a clear answer on his position concerning the decision to remove Saddam Hussein."

That last shot, a frequent taunt from the Bush campaign to Kerry, came after the Democrat told the UNITY gathering that he "might" have gone to war if Hussein had refused to disarm.

"You bet we might have," Kerry said, adding that the result would not have cost as much in American casualties or taxpayers' money.

Rudy's statement stands on it's own. But Kerry saying "You bet we might have" is just absurd. This is the extreme of wishy washy. It shows his inability to make a tough decision. Kerry has had quite some time to think of a good answer. It shows that he is truly on the same page as the UN. And, for a man with no plan and no position, he sure seems to know alot about costs .

So now he has become Lt(jg) Wishy Washy.

Posted by piratesx at 8:15 AM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Kerry on the Stump
Mood:  irritated
Talk about taking a page from Michael Moore, Kerry is complaining about Bush's reaction in that Florida schoolroom.

"Had I been reading to children, and had my top aide whispered in my ear, 'America is under attack,' I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had something that he needed to attend to, and I would have attended to it,"

Really? Now he wants to tell us what he would have done. He sure ducts that when asked about Iraq. This quote shows another reason why Kerry is unfit to be President. The President shouldn't be rushing off, with live TV cameras present, scaring the country even more then they already were. I do not know about you, but, even down here in Raleigh, I was scared, and quite concerned. Seeing POTUS rush out of the room would have dramatically increased those feelings.

The President needs to be calm. The President also has people to do what needed to be done, which was finding out what the heck was going on. What was he supposed to do personally? WHat actions was he to take? The Left always fails to tell us that part.

Furthermore, if the Secret Service felt he was in danger, they would have gotten him out of there, whether he liked it or not. Many on the Left have said that he endangered the children by remaining. Had there been a plane targetting that school, how would they have known that he left? Would they not have continued to target the school?

Me, I want a rational, calm, President, who lets the pro's do their jobs. Not a President who will run recklessly off to micromanage.

A Thought for the Day
Why does the media, even the far left media, mostly refer to Kerry as John Kerry, or Mr. Kerry, not Senator Kerry? Very rarely will you see him refered to as Senator Kerry. Even the Massachusets and DC papers rarely refer to him as Senator Kerry. Senator is not that hard of a word. 3 syllables.

GWB is more often referred to as President Bush. You will often see other Congress Critters referred to as Rep. or Sen.(insert name here).

Great Googly Moogly!
Mood:  loud
If you have kids, here is a great reason to watch what they are doing on the PC: downloading music.

Terror Warnings Politically Motivated?
Mood:  irritated
Are the terror warnings politically motivated? Not by the Bush Admin, but by the Left. There are several new stories today by the NY Times, Washington Post, and the AP, regarding the terror warnings issued Sunday, about both the USA abd Great Britain.

Both the Grey Lady and the AP cite another source for the US warnings:

WASHINGTON -- A third person separate from the two prisoners and documents previously disclosed provided information indicating Al Qaeda (search) was plotting to attack U.S. financial buildings, Bush administration officials said Wednesday in seeking to counter criticism their latest terror warning was overblown.

The White House described the information from the third person as "another new stream of intelligence" that supported its decision to issue the warning. It arrived days before the public alert, as officials were reviewing reams of recently obtained documents and photographs that showed surveillance of five buildings in New York, New Jersey and Washington carried out years earlier by Al Qaeda.

And the WP reports on raids in Britain on Al Queda suspects:

A key al Qaeda figure who had access to the surveillance data that led authorities to increase the terror alert level was among those arrested in raids in Britain on Tuesday, according to a senior U.S. national security official. He said the arrests were made on information obtained following the arrests of al Qaeda suspects in Pakistan.

Now, this is all good information. But, it begs the question, did the nay sayers like Howard Dean cause both governments to give out information that they would rather have kept quiet, to show that the alerts were politically motivated to begin with? If you read those articles, or similar ones elsewhere, so did Al Queda. The balance between informing the public and giving free intelligence to the enemy is a difficult one. It doesn't help when people like Dean play fast and loose with National Security for political gain, or, in this case, to denigrate the Bush administration.