http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/3/6/121052.shtml

Make of this what you will. I couldn’t find the refered articles in FreeRepublic.

Posted by: jones at March 6, 2004 02:51 PM

Oh I’m shocked, shocked, do you hear me?… that Big Ketchup is behind these ads.

I suppose FDR should have kept his mouth shut about Pearl Harbor and leadership when he ran for the 4th time in ‘44. Can’t have anyone cashing in on the suffering of others, can we?

As devastated and shell-shocked as the relatives of 9/11 might be, it was not a ‘private affair’ whose ownership is theirs. It was a profoundly international event whose handling will play a very important role in the next election.

Which is why Mr. Heinz wants it squashed. At least Clinton would have done a better job of hiding the paper trail.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at March 6, 2004 06:16 PM

The first time I heard about the outrage families had about the ads, not one time were the Dems mentioned as having started it. All I saw were family members upset that Bush and his cronies would use images from the WTC to try and win votes. It was only after I read that Karen Hughes started pointing fingers across the aisle that Dems were causing a stir that I realized that it would be miscontrued. Since then I’ve also read that Dems have condemned it but the GOP is not without fault here. The fact is that there are ways to remind the public that GDub did lead our nation through those trying days without having to put those images on screen. Bad taste in my opinion, especially the firefighters lifting the corpse with the flag draped over.

Posted by: Ekscalibur at March 6, 2004 06:24 PM

The first time I heard about the outrage families had about the ads, not one time were the Dems mentioned as having started it. All I saw were family members upset that Bush and his cronies would use images from the WTC to try and win votes. It was only after I read that Karen Hughes started pointing fingers across the aisle that Dems were causing a stir that I realized that it would be miscontrued. Since then I’ve also read that Dems have condemned it but the GOP is not without fault here. The fact is that there are ways to remind the public that GDub did lead our nation through those trying days without having to put those images on screen. Bad taste in my opinion, especially the firefighters lifting the corpse with the flag draped over.

Posted by: Ekscalibur at March 6, 2004 06:24 PM

To tell you the truth, I wasn’t all that impressed by Bush as a President before 9/11. The day changed all that. Not only does he have them to spare, he’s a player on the scale such that nobody even sees it all yet. I don’t know whether that was all there before 9/11, or he just rose to the task, but I’m voting for Bush precisely because of 9/11 and how he has responded to it.

Outside of ODS, SOP has been to toss a few TLAMS at terrorism and hope it goes away, , for nigh on three decades now, but our boy Dub has not only stepped up to the problem, he’s in the middle of executing a plan that’s going to put the state sponsored operators out of business for good.

Don’t like the 9/11 ads?

Heh.

You’re going to like losing the election even worse.

TS.

Posted by: jeffers at March 6, 2004 10:00 PM

All I can remember about Bush’s first response to the 9/11 tragedy is something to the effect that ..”It must’ve been a dumb pilot” ? Now that’s real compassion from a President that hopes to heal the wounds of this nation. Let’s face it Bush is not the brightest bulb on the tree and to re-elect him as President would be irresponsible.. As someone once said ..”Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”

Posted by: Stephen at March 6, 2004 10:47 PM

All I can remember about Bush’s first response to the 9/11 tragedy is something to the effect that ..”It must’ve been a dumb pilot” ? Now that’s real compassion from a President that hopes to heal the wounds of this nation. Let’s face it Bush is not the brightest bulb on the tree and to re-elect him as President would be irresponsible.. As someone once said ..”Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”

Posted by: Stephen at March 6, 2004 10:47 PM

don’t you just hate dirty politics…

remember Bush vs. McCain 2000

Hey, Karl…it ain’t 2000

Bush Team Planned Negative Strategy for South Carolina [Newsweek, 11/20/00]

Bush Adviser Outlined Groups Needed To Coordinate Negative Campaign; Said of McCain: “We’ve got To Take This Guy Out.” [Newsweek, 11/20/00]

Bush Caught Bragging About Negative Attacks Against McCain [Associated Press, 2/12/03]

Push Polls in South Carolina Called McCain “A Cheat, A Liar and A Fraud” [Associated Press, 2/10/00]

Bush Veteran’s Event Targeted McCain; Surrogate Said “He Came Home. He Forgot Us.” [Washington Post, 2/4/00; New York Times, 2/5/00; FOX; Special Report with Brit Hume, 2/3/00; Tapper, Salon, 2/11/00]

McCain’s Personal Life Criticized by Bush Supporter in Christian Magazine Edited by Bush Adviser. [New York Times, 2/16/00, Safire column, Austin American-Statesman, 2/17/00, 2/18/00; Salon, 2/25/00]

Posted by: carl at March 6, 2004 10:48 PM

The Bush campaign had an inital media buy of about $5 million (if I recall correctly), but the controversy generated by those ads got them onto the front-burner of every newspaper and talk show in the country for most of the week. Brilliant return on their investment.

Mission accomplished (pun intended): A predictable minority is ‘outraged’, the media jumps all over it showing the ads repeatedly—in primetime, for free, and a sleeping electorate is reminded that 9/11 happened and Bush stepped up and become a leader. And they still insist on calling him stupid.

(I just wish Bush would remember the change sometimes and stop slumping back to pre-2001 issues.)

Posted by: Joe Maller at March 6, 2004 10:53 PM

Here’s another one - link

karma sucks…and Daddy can’t fix it.

Posted by: carl at March 6, 2004 10:54 PM

There is no defending the shameless exploitation and mass marketing of the horrors and the dead of 9/11 for partisan political gain. It is a grotesque and offensive abuse. Using ground zero a backdrop for Bush commercials in light of the stonewalling, resisting, and refusing to cooperate in good faith with the 9/11 investigations is the hieght of hypocrisy and repugnant.

9/11 impacted all America, left right, rich poor, republican democrat, and it is a event of reverance and remembrance, not a partisan political event.

“Nobody even sees it all yet” jeffers, because none of it is true. Any president would have attacked al Quaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. There was no exceptional courage involved in that decision. We all left and right unconditionally supported that just and necessary military response to the 9/11 attacks.

But shortly after decapitating the Taliban and dispersing al Quaida, the Bush government lost focus, and used, exploited, and mass marketed 9/11 to advance the narrow and singular interests and agenda of the Bush oligarchy.

9/11 is the cheap excuse for all the Bush policies and activities.

Courageous leadership would have redressed Saudi Arabia immediately after 9/11, and demanded that the abundant funding and nurturing of all the jihadist mass murder gangs, including al Quaida come to a swift and verifiable end, or else!!. Bush attacked Iraq instead based on two years of pimping OSP deceptions and hype.

Baker’s PR firm accepts millions of dollar’s from the Saudi’s to frame these Americahaters as “good friends’, which may benefit the Bush oligary, but does not serve the best interest of the American people. Framing the Saudi’s as “good friends” allows the wahabi maddrasses and imams to continue teaching generations of 4-year-old Muslims to kill Jews, Americans and all infidels, as a religious quest. Framing the Saudi’s as “good friends” cloaks the House of Saud refusal to cooperate with any American investigation into 9/11 or any of the attacks against American interests in SA.

Courageous leadership would have included, and acted against all the Gaza mass murder gangs in the neverendingwaronterror, yet the Bush govenment somehow, for some unknown and troubling reason elected to grant immunity to these Americahating mass murderers and attacked the wrong Muslims in Iraq.

Courageous leadership would have stood before the American people and denounced the despicable, offensive, and patently false sliming of our fellow American’s for questioning the Iraq war deceptions.

This reprehensible conduct more than any other is responsible for the fierce divisions between theleft and theright. Bush was silent in the face of theright dividing America, and hardly courageous.

Don’t count your chickenhawks before they’re hatched jeffers, because many Americans do not share your blind adoration for Bush.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at March 6, 2004 11:05 PM

Joe,

ya ole spinmeister. keep tellin’ yourself that this bozo is going to win. it’ll feel good up ‘til November.

primetime TV showed what a user this jerk is. “say anything to get elected” is the message i heard all day. brilliant.

9/11 happened on his watch…and he was warned…and he drags his feet on the investigation. i’m telling you the guy is brilliant.

jeffers, what was so spectacular about GWB’s 9/11 performance? He and Cheney were scared shitless. “boy Dub” is accurate. Interesting, isn’t it, how most of the money for terrorism comes from the Saud family? Yep, he’s gonna get dem tearists. Campus Republican wet dream.

And we’re still going to get OBL...in the past few days, we went on “intensive” and we’re 24/7 after him. Ridiculous. mentally unbalanced triggerman for the country with the most lopsided military advantage in history.

We got ourselves a nation-building exercise in Iraq…like GWB said he wasn’t going to do. And we don’t got OBL...just another nation-building exercise in Afghanistan. Where, incidentally, most of the world’s heroin supply comes from. Where do suppose they sell most of that heroin?

Posted by: carl at March 6, 2004 11:12 PM

carl I`d pay money to watch you say that to his face!! BUSH IS GIONG TO MOP THE FLOOR WITH JOHN F….. KERRY

Posted by: Rob..NC at March 6, 2004 11:55 PM

BUSH 04 GOT`A NICE RING TO IT DONT`A THINK
…{;-)..

Posted by: Rob.. NC at March 7, 2004 12:01 AM

BUSH 04 GOT`A NICE RING TO IT DONT`A YA THINK
…{;-)..

Posted by: Rob.. NC at March 7, 2004 12:02 AM

Are Democrats so desperate and pathetic that they have to whine and cry and sob and bemoan and belly ache over every FREAKEN thing!?!

John Kerry can put up a 30 second Vietnam Video on the Internet and none of the Democrats are even talking about it. But when President Bush puts up his ad concerning his leadership on 9/11 we got all of this belly aching.

No matter how much you hate Bush you can’t criticize him on the war on terrorism. The only criticism we get from these liberals is nothing more than blatant stupidty. “Bush said this, bush said that, bush stuttered, bush read to kids, bush adjusted his crotch”) So FREAKEN WHAT!? What does that have to do with the war on terrorism? NOTHING!

People like Stephan are going to wallow in their own self pity and hatred because they are so brainwashed to believe that Terrorists are heroes we should respect and look up to. Well… I am not a liberal. I am not a Democrat. I do not respect Terrorists. I do not look up to terrorsts. I support a man who will go to war to kill terrorists.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 7, 2004 12:21 AM

It would,of coarse, be beyond the bounds of dignity to accuse the Democratic Party of using a NATIONAL TRAGEDY and the ensuing losses of American men and women for political purposes………………………………………

(In 1944 there was no television. The main source of direct media communication between politicians and the public, was radio.)

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Fireside Chat Radio Address to the Nation
Hyde Park, New York
November 6, 1944

As we sit quietly this evening in our home at Hyde Park, our thoughts, like those of millions of other Americans, are most deeply concerned with the well-being of all our American fighting men. We are thinking of our own sons—all of them Far away from home — and of our neighbors’ sons and the sons of our friends.

That concern rises above all others in this critical period of our national life.

Some are standing at battle stations on shipboard, tense in the excitement of action; some lie in wet foxholes, or trudge doggedly through the sticky mud, firing as they go. Still others are high above the earth, fighting Messerschmitts or Zeros.

All of them are giving everything they have got to defeat our enemies, and uppermost in all their minds is the one thought: to win the war as soon as possible, so that they may return to the quiet and peace of their own homes.

But — in the midst of fighting— in the presence of our brutal enemies—our soldiers and sailors and airmen will not forget election day back home.
Millions of these men have already cast their own ballots, and they will be wondering about the outcome of the election, and what it will mean to them in their future lives. And sooner or later all of them will be asking questions as to whether the folks back home looked after their interests, their liberties, their Government, their country — while they themselves were off at war.

Our boys are counting on us to show the rest of the world that our kind of government is the best in the world- and the kind we propose to keep! And so, when our people turn out at the polls tomorrow—and I sincerely hope that it will be fifty million strong—the world will respect our democracy, and the grand old Stars and Stripes will wave more proudly than ever before.

These brave fighters of ours have taken on enemies on both sides of the world, enemies who were nurtured since childhood in militarism. These boys of ours, wisely led, and using the matchless weapons which you here at home have sent to them, have outfought those ruthless enemies, out fought them on the land, outfought them on the sea, outfought them in the skies. They are winning the victory for all of us. Many are giving life itself.

And it is for us to make certain that we win for them- the living and the dead—a lasting peace.

There is nothing adequate which anyone in any place can say to those who are entitled to display the gold star in their windows. But each night as the people of the United States rest in their homes which have been safe from violence during all these years of the most violent war in all history—I am sure all of them silently give thought to their feelings of deepest gratitude to the brave departed and to their families for the immeasurable sacrifice that they have made For the cause of decency and freedom and civilization………

Naaah!!!! The Democratic Party would never use the power of the incumbancy in a Fireside Chat on the night before the election to influence voters…..

Posted by: ET at March 7, 2004 01:39 AM

“No matter how much you hate Bush you can?t criticize him on the war on terrorism.”

I suggest a 1 hour moratorium on criticism of GWB’s tireless efforts to defeat terrorism. One hour of anyone’s time is a small sacrifice in the face of the huge, nay epoch-defining choice facing us, and the slaughtered and maimed civilians that seek to deny our God-given right to lynch people that don’t look like us.

If we all gave an hour of our precious time, this war would be won in an instant! Billions of like-minded patriots, working in concert… Come’on people! Just an hour of your time. If we all concentrate and testify on the record, the naked facts that a President spent 42% of his term on vacation and then sat reading to a class of kids while a great and gathering threat, er gathered and deployed, woud crumble into dust like collapsed buildings. A happy by-product of this destruction would be the removal of the baseless accusation that allowing the single greatest violation of US national security is one thing, but then running a re-election campaign on the fact said violation occurred is another, treasonous and totally unrelated charge

” I support a man who will go to war to kill terrorists.”

I’ll support that guy, also. Despite Blair’s recent speech, that guy isn’t GWB, or even GBW. Surely a guy who aims to kill terrorists will do his utmost to contribute to the 9/11 inquiry, with the aim that such a slaughter of innocents will never happen again.

Remember, people, analysts are talking this GWOT up in cold war times, at least temporarily. 4 decades = 350 000 hours. Surely valiant patriots can spare 1 hour / 350 000. All of us c@@ts with nothing better to do will obviously contribute

Posted by: dirk strom at March 7, 2004 02:20 AM

The ‘Offended’ 911 Group “Peaceful Tomorrows” is funded largely by Teresa Heinz
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1091579/posts

Posted by: Fat Guy at March 7, 2004 04:12 AM

Tony,

“refusing to cooperate in good faith with the 9/11 investigations “

There is no reason (beyond political calculus) to cooperate with a bipartisan investigation panel whose Democratic members are busy strategizing how to maximize their political gain from it. They are acting in bad faith, so why should the President act “in good faith”?

FDR can use Pearl Harbor, Kerry can use his four months in Vietnam, and the President can use 9/11. The reality is that if people forget, and return to the holiday from history (RIP, 1991-2001), two things result. The less important is that Kerry has a better chance in November. The more important is that we become more vulnerable to people who would rejoice at the opportunity to slaughter us by the tens of thousands.

MG

Posted by: MG at March 7, 2004 05:54 AM

You read the articles and headlines and you’d think Bush was weasly about the ads.

My local news station slipped up, though, and showed the snippet from Crawford (Vicente Fox was in town scoping out locations for a new capital, I think). A refreshing lack of nuance! “How we handled Sep 11th is important and we will discuss it.” Boom. He even used the word ‘is’ in its traditional sense.

Posted by: Joan at March 7, 2004 12:47 PM

(Let’s imagine your slurr about the democrats on the 9/11 investigation having some political gain in mind is true, - a contention I would challenge.)

Riddle me this MG, - If the president has nothing to hide, or be concerned about, why would he care what the democrats are doing, why would he have picked the democrats on the committee, and why would he not want the democrats exposed for politicizing 9/11?

There can be no more grievous treachery.

The 9/11 investigation is a whitewash anyway, headed and controlled at every turn by republican spanials of the Bush oligarchy working as hard as they can to cover up and shield the Bush government for accountability.

You can invent all the visionary excuses you want, but there is no defending this president stonewalling, resisting, and refusing to cooperate in good faith with the 9/11 investigations.

9/11 was the single most impacting moment and event in modern American history, and changed the entire world forever. Americans have a right to know what went wrong, what failures contributed to the mass murder of 3000 Americans (and obviously there were many cataclysmic failures), who and/or what was responsible for those failures, and what measures and changes need to be adopted to prevent another 9/11.

Bush obviously has much to hide!

The president can use 9/11 to shamelessly exploit the horrors and the dead of that dark day, and prove how unscupulous, callous, and insensitive he is, and how he will stoop to the lowest most base level to garner votes, - but the sad fact remains, 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch, there was plenty of intel warning of al Quaida hijacking planes, and this leadership was caught sleeping, while bent on Iraq. All the truebeliever hype, excuses, evasions, disinformation, and cloaking of facts will never, NEVER alter that ugly truth.

We all support killing terrorists, (bring us the head of Arafat) and any democrat will pursue this just and necessary mission with fierce determination, - it’s the Pax Americana neverendingwar and empire agenda of the rightwingideologue warmongers in the Bush oligarchy, thier endemic deceptions and secretiveness, the sliming of our fellow Americans, the rampant and systemic war profiteering, - and the shameless mass marketing and exploitation of the horrors and the dead of 9/11 for partisan political gain we do NOT, and will NEVER support.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at March 7, 2004 01:03 PM

“We all support killing terrorists, (bring us the head of Arafat)”

Actually, “we all” do not support any such thing. There were plenty of voices demanding that we not bomb the helpless people of Afghanistan. There are plenty of people who oppose any prospective infringement on civil rights in exchange for making it easier to kill terrorists. There are plenty of people who send money to organizations that use teenagers to detonate explosives among civilians (can you say, “EU money to the Palestinian Authority”?). There are plenty of people who will argue until the year 2100 over what defines a terrorist, and demand the protections of American citizens for accused terrorists.

So please, don’t claim that we all support killing terrorists. It sounds nice in theory, but in practice, plenty of people don’t really want to do what is necessary to kill them.

We had a democrat in the White House that did NOT pursue this just and necessary mission with fierce determination. Rather he pursued it with a few cruise missiles and lots of bluster. AND he claimed the same things for the regime of Saddam Hussein that the current administration did, AND signed into law a bill that made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the US. In 1998 — for the same reasons that Bush offered.

The President has plenty of stuff to hide — stuff that every Chief Executive has “hidden” since G. Washington. Staffing processes, drafts of analysis, who he spoke with, when, and about what, conclusions, strategies… the list goes on and on. The President, and the Congress, and the Judiciary, all have valid requirements for secrecy. So, you see, it is quite simple to defend “stonewalling, resisting, and refusing to cooperate”. Each branch has its power base, and each branch tries to infringe on the power base of the others.

It is called “checks and balances”. Perhaps you have heard of it.

So, nice, shrill try at an argument, Tony, but an argument needs to:

1. Offer evidence that buttresses one’s claims.
2. Offer evidence that refutes other possible claims that the evidence in #1 also supports.

If at first you don’t succeed….

MG

MG

Posted by: MG at March 7, 2004 01:32 PM

“We all support killing terrorists, (bring us the head of Arafat) and any democrat will pursue this just and necessary mission with fierce determination”

1. What? It’s terror-ISM that we’re after, remember? As for ‘head’ and ‘Arafat’, I’ll admit those two words have been part of Democratic policy.

2. Since no Democrat HAS pursued or even supported that just and necessary mission, why would they start now?

Your efforts to craft a plausible liberal ‘Tony Foresta’ are pretty good. But I’d throw in more of a Hillary double-speak and less of the unhinged “!!!RIGHTWINGIDEALOGUE WARMONGERS!!!” persona. That’d be more sporting.

Posted by: nat7 at March 7, 2004 01:35 PM

This comment has been deleted.

The user has been banned.

Posted by: jt at March 7, 2004 01:55 PM

Republican presidents including Bush’s daddy did not pursue terrorists either. There is the world pre 9/11, where America turned a blind eye, and even supported terrorists, (including bin Laden), - and there is the post 9/11 world where we all (democrat and republican alike) - comprehend that terrorism and specifically the jihadist malignancy must for forcefully redressed. When Kerry assumes the role of commander and chief, you will see this truth play out.

In the context of the pre-9/11 world Clinton more than any previous president was hot after terrorist including bin Laden, and handed the Bush government detailed assessments of al Quaida operations, ambitions, and threats, - which the unelected fraud and Andover cheerleader chose to ignore.

Clinton also thwarted the millenium attacks and actually convicted those responsible for the 1 WTC bombing, unlike Bush who has yet to convict anyone for any crime relating to 9/11.

No one expects and national security secrets to be aired publically silly, but there is plenty of information outstanding information including a memo given to Condi weeks before 9/11 specifically mentioning al Quaida hijacking aircraft an increase in ‘chatter”. There is also the mysterious spiriting around the country and eventually back to Saudi Arabia of 140 Saudi nationals including bin Laden family members in the dark hours and days after 9/11, - a number of extraordinary stock plays involving oil, energy, and defence concerns as well as both American and United airlines.

Prince Bandar’s wife aided and abetted the minder of the San Diego cell of the 9/11 mass murderers, and ” … the list goes on and on. ” The people demand accountability.- there are many questions that remain unanswered and the Bush government resistance to the investigations indicates they have much to hide.

You might want to review those Constitutional checks and balance constructs, because the framers specifically embedded in the foundation of our government structural prohibitions to any concentration of wealth and power by any single group, party, cartel, order or individual, and many of those checks and balances are being eroded or ignored by the republican controlled congress, the office of the executive with the simple cry of 9/11! Please explain who gave authority and power to the OSP, and White House Iraq Group to dictate and implement American foriegn policy. Who provide overview or scrutiny to these extragovernmentals clans? Who do they report to? Whose interests do they serve? How are they accountable? Do these cabals or clan supercede or render useless existing US intelligence services and assessments, as they obviously did to pimp the Iraq war?

The Supreme court as well is compromized, (Cheney and Scalia’s hunting trips are more than troubling in light of the, 2000 selection, the continued cloaking of the secret Cheney oil and energy cabal that drafted America’s energy policy, and the several ongoing investigations into abuses of the executive.)

Nice try truebelievers, - but you can attempt to defend the indefensible by sliming the questioners and distorting reality to your inky dark hearts content, - but you cannot defend the long and festering list of deceptions, abuses, failures, and negligence of the Bush government.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at March 7, 2004 06:20 PM

“which the unelected fraud and Andover cheerleader chose to ignore.”

This rather minimizes the opportunities Clinton ignored, eh? Ad hominem attacks don’t help your case, Tony. If you don’t like the US Supreme Court’s decision, perhaps you could at least acknowledge that the Florida Supreme Courts decision (opposed by its chief justice) directed different treatment for ballots within the same county. You could decry that sort of unequal treatment, but you won’t, because you need this “stolen election” lie to sustain your hatred.

Extragovernmental clans? You mean like NGO’s? Or the UN? Or Mr. Soros’ 527 groups?

“but you can attempt to defend the indefensible by sliming the questioners and distorting reality to your inky dark hearts content”

Pot, meet kettle.

Still no argument from you, Tony. Only increasingly shrill conspiracy claims. Construct an argument, and then I can respond. Name-calling and adolescent taunting won’t do much here.

MG

Posted by: MG at March 7, 2004 06:48 PM

Tony, you’re going to be fun when you get to your second quarter of poli sci! Go Golden Bears! The seething anger you feel at not making the Andover cheerleading squad lends real spice to your screeds, too.

Let’s go over your last argument: errr, maybe it’s ‘Kerry should be President because he’s forceful’. That’s deep but leaves a nagging question: How on earth can anyone predict what he’ll be for in January?

Is Tony Foresta, who was there when Clinton handed over detailed lists and assessments to Bush, who has always stood on the side of forceful redress of terrorism, dedicated student of the Constitution and sworn enemy of that darned secret oil cabal, willing to take a risk on John ‘Flapjack’ Kerry?

Posted by: cogspen at March 7, 2004 06:58 PM

Presedent Kerry?

Based on Kerry’s positions expressed in the Senate and on the campaign trail his stance is known and presumably would serve to guide his policy prescriptions.

While Kerry did vote for the war in Iraq, he voted against the appropriations for that nation’s rehabilitation. During the campaign, Kerry continually noted that this nation cannot cut and run from Iraq, but he believes the situation should be “internationalized.” That is a euphemism for greater involvement of the U.N.

What Kerry does not note is the utter failure of the U.N. to play a systematic and coherent role in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East. Moreover, Germany and France, the nations Kerry contends we should have cultivated for the war effort are vehemently opposed to U.S. hegemony in the region. And if recent accounts are at all accurate, the leaders of these nations have been compromised by financial arrangements with Saddam Hussein.

Yet this position is consistent with his impulse for multilateralism in general. Kerry is persuaded the United States should be encouraging a world community of interests, one that recognizes the importance of alliances.

What he overlooks is that most western European states are eager to challenge America’s world dominance. They consider multilateralism the ropes that can subdue an American Gulliver.
Without the military means to pursue their interests, European states rely solely on diplomacy, which, as the prelude to war in Iraq indicated, has its limitations.

If one were to extend this multilateral orientation to other critical matters, Kerry would most likely have supported the Kyoto Accord, despite the fact Russia disapproves and India and China – the world’s most populous nations – are not included in the agreement.

It is also likely Kerry would be inclined to support the International Criminal Court even though some of the world’s most tyrannical states are members. What these concerns add up to is a Democratic leader inclined to consider international before national interests having bought into the proposition that global stability is more easily achieved through alliances and diplomacy.

Senator Kerry, as his background suggests, is not disinclined to support the use of the U.S. forces abroad, but like most Democrats believes that our national interests are restricted to humanitarian interests solely, what I would call “restrictive internationalism.”

Self conscious Americans unable to come to grips with U.S. dominance on the world stage, chastise President Bush for “going alone,” a largely exaggerated judgment. But what these people, including Kerry, fail to consider is that the current administration is responsible for eliminating two of the most violent and tyrannical regimes on the globe. Does anyone think this would have happened if the U.S. relied on diplomacy and our so-called allies in Europe?

Does any serious policy analyst think this would be a safer world if the U.S. acted only with the complicity and approval of our so-called European allies?

George Washington spoke disapprovingly of entangling alliances two centuries ago. Notwithstanding Kerry’s instincts, this is still good advice today. If the U.S. has to overcome any deficiency, it is the naïve belief this nation cannot act alone even when it is in our interest to do so. I doubt Kerry appreciates that matter. As president his positions – as I see it – would be catastrophic in fighting the war on terrorism and protecting U.S. interests abroad.
“President Kerry?” I hope not.

Posted by: Fat Guy at March 7, 2004 08:06 PM

by Dennis Prager

America is engaged in two wars for the survival of its civilization. The war over same-sex marriage and the war against Islamic totalitarianism are actually two fronts in the same war — a war for the preservation of the unique American creation known as Judeo-Christian civilization.

One enemy is religious extremism. The other is secular extremism.

One enemy is led from abroad. The other is directed from home.

The first war is against the Islamic attempt to crush whoever stands in the way of the spread of violent Islamic theocracies, such as al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Iranian mullahs and Hamas. The other war is against the secular nihilism that manifests itself in much of Western Europe, in parts of America such as San Francisco and in many of our universities.

America leads the battle against both religious and secular nihilism and is hated by both because it rejects both equally. American values preclude embracing either religious extremism or radical secularism. As Alexis de Tocqueville, probably the greatest observer of our society, wrote almost 200 years ago, America is a unique combination of secular government and religious (Judeo-Christian) society.

Not only has this combination been unique, it has been uniquely successful. America, therefore, poses as mortal a threat to radical secularism as it does to Islamic totalitarianism. Each understands that America’s success means its demise.

This is a major reason why the Left so opposes anti-Islamism (just as it opposed anti-communism). In theory, the Left should be at least as opposed to the Islamists as is the Right. But the Left is preoccupied first with destroying America’s distinctive values — a Judeo-Christian society (as opposed to a secular one), capitalism (as opposed to socialism), liberty (as opposed to equality) and exceptionalism (as opposed to universalism, multiculturalism and multilateralism). So, if the Islamists are fellow anti-Americans, the Left figures it can worry about them later.

All this explains why the passions are so intense regarding same-sex marriage. Most of the activists in the movement to redefine marriage wish to overthrow the predominance of Judeo-Christian values in American life. Those who oppose same-sex marriage understand that redefining the central human institution marks the beginning of the end of Judeo-Christian civilization.

Let us understand this redefinition as clearly as possible:

With same-sex marriage, our society declares by law that mothers are unnecessary, since two men are equally ideal as mothers and as the creators of a family; and that fathers are unnecessary, since two women are equally ideal as parents and as the creators of a family.

With same-sex marriage, our society declares that there is nothing special or even necessarily desirable about a man and a woman bonding. What is sacred to the proponents of same-sex marriage is the number of people marrying (two, for the time being), not that a man and woman bond.

With same-sex marriage, when taught in school about sex, marriage and family, children will have to be taught that male-male and female-female sex, love and marriage are identical to male-female sex, love and marriage. And when asked, “Who do you think you will marry when you grow up?” thanks to the ubiquitous images of media, far more children will consider members of the same sex.

With same-sex marriage, no adoption agency will ever be able to prefer a married man and woman as prospective parents. Aside from the tragedy of denying untold numbers of children a mother and a father, this will lead to a drastic diminution in women placing children for adoption, since most of these women will prefer something that will then be illegal — that agencies place her child with a man and woman, not with two men or two women.

With same-sex marriage, any media — films, advertisements, greeting cards — that only depict married couples as a woman and a man will be considered discriminatory and probably be sued.

With same-sex marriage, those religious groups that only marry men and women will be deemed beyond the pale, marginalized and ostracized.

There have been many Christian countries, and they are no longer. They have been replaced by secular countries, and they are weakening. Only American civilization remains strong, and it does so because of its unique amalgam of values rooted in Judeo-Christian morality.

This civilization is now fighting for its life — as much here as abroad. Join the fight, or it will be gone as fast as you can say “Democrat.”

Posted by: Fat Guy at March 7, 2004 08:21 PM

The slime tactics never change for theright. Hurl unsubtantiated slime and slander on the opposition and avoid, evade, excuse, ignore, and every possible way shield and refuse to examine or recognize the failures, deceptions, abuses, and negligence of the Bush government.

Your responses support my claims and provide excellent examples of therights falsely demonizing anyone and everyone questioning or opposing the Bush government as communist, Frenchloving, anti-American-effete-lunatic-spawn of the devil, or some variation thereof. This slurr of your fellow Americans prevents a vetting of facts, and is fiercely dividing the nation.

This pathetic, underhanded, and unsupportable practice is intended to misdirect attention away from Bushbadnews and dismiss dissent and/or any question of the Bush governments policies, activities, or invidious agenda.

Kerry, Clinton, “demoncrats” “libruls”, the NGO’s, the UN, Mr. Soros’s 527 groups did not decieve the American people by pimping non-existant Iraqi WMD threats for two years to justify a bloody costly war, and woefuly misguided, pathetically poorly planned, radically miscalculated, or intentionally cloaked occupation and nationbuilding enterprize against the wrong Muslims in Iraq.

The Bush government is singularly responsible for the grotesque abuse of power, the enormous costs, and “the long hard slog” America’s children will hazard and endure in, and because of Iraq.

9/11 happened on Bush’s watch as commander and chief and Kerry, Clinton, “demoncrats” “libruls”, the NGO’s, the UN, Mr. Soros’s 527 groups were not in any position to act, nor did any of them have the authority to respond prior or subsequent to 9/11.

The Bush government held the office of the executive, and the congress, and Bush was the commander and chief who failed the nation before 9/11, and has divided the nation in two short years.

Kerry, Clinton, “demoncrats” “libruls”, the NGO’s, the UN, Mr. Soros’s 527 groups did not revenge out an agency WMD operative whose husband publically debunked the Bush government Niger uranium deception.

Some creep in the Bush government was responsible for that treasonous and despicable act.

Kerry, Clinton, “demoncrats” “libruls”, the NGO’s, the UN, Mr. Soros’s 527 groups do not shamelessly exploit the horrors and the dead of 9/11 for patisan political gain, nor do they stonewall, resist or refuse to cooperate in good faith with the 9/11 white wash - I mean investigation.

The Bush government is singularly responsible for this greivious act of treachery and cloaking of accountability.

Kerry, Clinton, “demoncrats” “libruls”, the NGO’s, the UN, Mr. Soros’s 527 groups are not profiting obscenely from the prosecution of the war, occupation, and nebulous waronterror.

The Bush government and cronies and cartels in the Bush oligarchy are singularly profiteering from the war, occupation, and nebulous waronterror.

Kerry, Clinton, “demoncrats” “libruls”, the NGO’s, the UN, Mr. Soros’s 527 groups are not implementing a puppet government or divvying up the spoils and particularly the oil in Iraq and awarding incestuous cronies and cartels opened ended and/or enormous contracts America and Iraqi children will fund.

The Bush government is singularly responsible for implementing a puppet government and divvying up the spoils and particularly the oil in Iraq, and awarding incestuous cronies and cartels open ended contracts American and Iraq children will fund.

Lastly, framing the response to 9/11 as a battleroyal conflict between Judeo Christianity, and Islam is a rightwingideologue crusader myth, and an insane delusion that reasoned Americans do not support and will not countenance.

This is crusader agenda marks the divide between left and right. Theleft does not support imperialism, empire as foriegn policy.

Hunt, capture, or kill all the jihadist mass murderers and those that aid and abet them (most particularly the Americahating wahabe freaks abundantly funded and nurtured by Bush “good friends” in Saudi Arabia) -
but you can forget theleft ever supporting the Bush governments’ predatory war mongering, profiteering, sloganeering, and/or the insane delusions of the rightwing ideologue Pax Americana neverendingwar and empire agenda.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at March 7, 2004 11:39 PM

Dirk wrote,

“I’ll support that guy, also. Despite Blair’s recent speech, that guy isn’t GWB, or even GBW. Surely a guy who aims to kill terrorists will do his utmost to contribute to the 9/11 inquiry, with the aim that such a slaughter of innocents will never happen again.”

No you won’t support that guy. President Bush has held 2 wars against terrorist scum and you were probably out there waving signs trying to protect them.

You clearly don’t support President Bush’s pursuit in stopping terrorism, killing terrorists. You are absolutely, nothing more, than one of the those disgusting typical closed minded liberals who do not care what Conservative does because a conservative is not a liberal.

President Bush could kill a terrorist on your door step and you will still act like a liberal, smell like a liberal, and behave like a liberal. It would take a sheer bolt of lightning from God Almighty himself to get you to have 1 glimpse of reality.

The glimpse of reality is that there was no ‘warning signs’ on 9/11. The only warning signs went ignored by the FBI. Why? Becuase no one wanted to offend LIBERALS! No body wants to ‘anger’ and ‘upset’ liberals.

What am I talking about? I am talking about the very fact that even today we have liberals pissed off at our Government for singling out Islamic/Muslim people in a pursuit of stopping terrorism at home.

You LIBERALS whine, and whine, and whine, and whine, and basically cut off the testicles of our Intelligence Agencies. And then when something goes wrong and a democrat is president? You ignore it. Ignore, ignore, ignore. U.S.S. Cole Bombing never happened right?

Then when something bad happens and a Republican is President? Oh boy! You are the first to go out there and wave your signs!!! Stop the traffic! Bush = Hitler!!

The only friends you have are liberals.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 8, 2004 12:09 AM

If I was President of the United States like President George W. Bush, I would absolutely not pay a single DIME of attention to people like DIRK and TONY and all of those liberals out there seeking a 9/11 investigation to determine whether or not (I) am at fault for anything.

It is absolute FISHING.. fishing, fishing, fishing for something to blame BUSH for. Fishing fishing fishing.

In a time at which America is fighting Terrorism and requires the support of BOTH political parties. What we have is 1 Political Party full of Liberals who want to use John Kerry as a Gigantic VCR to press ‘REWIND’ and go back to the PRE- 9/11 Era of Defense, which resulted in 9/11.

9/11 is absolutely the fault of Bill Clinton. You might argue it is the fault of President Bush for not firing and getting rid of enough CLINTON appointed people such as George Tenet. But then again you are asking someone to take a job they never had before and expect them to sort out the entire mess just in time for a completely unexpected terrorist attack.

Liberal Hindsight is nothing more than ‘HATE CONSERVATIVES’ hindisight. It works as follows:

1) No matter what the facts are….. Just chose the ones you like and slap something together that paints Conservatives in the worst light possible.

There’s no thought in the rubbish.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 8, 2004 12:16 AM

Your partisan suppositions Fat Guy are flawed. Theleft appreciates America’s dominant role, and hypepower military and economic superiority we enjoy, which is the legacy left by leaders and government past, and not the product of any great effort by the current regime.

Yet, 19 guys with box cutters struck at the heart of America and changed the world forever, so quite obviously our dominant role and hyperpower military and economic superiority is vulnerable to very low tech, and yet catastophic attacks. We need the help and cooperation of the entire world to defeat and snuff out the malignancy of jihadist islam.

America cannot sustain or afford, nor will Americans countenance empire.

You leap to superhuman feats of mental gymnastics to excuse, evade, and ignore Bush deceptions, failures, abuses, and negligence - and heap glories on Bush for wars not won, and battles never fought, and then concoct wild and unsubstantiated slime against your fellow Americans who question of oppose the Bush government.

We applaud decapitating the Taliban and Saddam, though in both instances the wars continue as insurgent conflicts, and the Iraq war and occupation created worldwide and internal division.

We also applaud Clinton decapitating Milosovic, and note the minimalist tactics and radically reduced costs in blood and treasure.

We question why Saudi Arabia is called our good friend, and why Libya is suddenly pardoned for its crimes against humanity and aiding and abetting jihadist mass murderers.

You succumb to the RoveBush mindwarp proselytizing the rightwingideologue fictions and parables of American exceptionalism, and neoimperlism, and view multilaterlism and internationalism as ropes to bind Gulliver, the giant America.

No one bind America, but Americans.

And you are most correct that we do not accept eroding our essential rights freedoms and protections to afford the rightwingideologues in the Bush oligarchy unprecedented and overarching powers without overview, scrutiny, accountability, or remedy or recourse to abuse.

The world economies are interdependent and interpenetrating. We are not and cannot survive on this planet in isolation, nor are we any more insulated, or invulnerable.

American military aggression, brutish hubris, imperialism, and hegemony, will be countered in myriad way overtly and covertly overtime. Nations and alliances will realign to thwart, counter and balance the hegemony and aggression of American imperialism and empire, which is exactly why America must lead the world, not attempt to conquer it. Our children cannot sustain and do not deserve the awesome terrible debt of American hegemony and empire.

Torquevilles American 200 years ago is far removed from the much more secular, diverse, and progressive America today. While we may be JudeoChristian in some sense, - the majority of Americans do not support the fundamentalist perversions, plurality, hypocricy and puritanical tyranny of the rightwingideologue fundamentalist Chistians or Zionist Jews in the Bush government.

All these bastardized perversions and fundamentalist mutations of religion are false so keep all of it out of the government and Americas foriegn policy.

Crusades and inquistions are old word, and we inhabit the 21st century now.

I do agree with you Fat Guy that ” civilization is now fighting for its life”. Fundamentalism regardless of the flavor, zionist, farrightchristian, and jihadist are like warring vampires feeding on the blood of humanity, and threatening to hurl all humanity into war and oblivion to decide whose false prophets, or whose bastardized books speak for god - when then terrible truth is that all of these false churches speak for tyrants and mindless flocks of truebelievers, and are far removed from the hopes and dreams of most of humanity and totally anathema to true religion or any god, or gods.

By the way Clinton’s cruise missile attack and “allot of bluster” put al Quaida bug and chem R&D out of business at the time.

Clinton also initiated the ‘first responder” strategies, and Dark Winter excercise to test America’s domestic response to a WMD attack.

Newsmax and the gospel according to fox disinformation and propaganda distort, slime, cloak,and morph the facts, - but the truth will set you free - you might want to look into it.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at March 8, 2004 12:43 AM

“Your partisan suppositions Fat Guy are flawed. Theleft appreciates America’s dominant role, and hypepower military and economic superiority we enjoy, which is the legacy left by leaders and government past, and not the product of any great effort by the current regime.

Yet, 19 guys with box cutters struck at the heart of America and changed the world forever, so quite obviously our dominant role and hyperpower military and economic superiority is vulnerable to very low tech, and yet catastophic attacks. We need the help and cooperation of the entire world to defeat and snuff out the malignancy of jihadist islam.”

19 Guys with Box Cutters were able to cause this tragedy NOT BECAUSE of our Military, NOT because of our Economy, NOT because of our Government, NOT because of all that.

It is pretty freaken simple if you ever payed any attention to the Airport Security Issues throughout the 1990s and into 2000. Where I live, next to several airports. Specifically North Western Airlines. They went from 1 security organization heading up air port security to the next team to next team to the next team.. Failure after Failure after Failure….. Weapons and Guns and what not were getting passed security.

Alarms went off and no one really had any respect or confidence in North Western. No one had respect that this airline could protect anyone.

Ok…. Then we have another I believe American Airlines and the original ownership was thrown out for a communal ownership deal. Because that place was ran poorly as well. We have lots of airports, running very poorly (especially in security issues), year after year after year after year after year.

It is absolutely NOT A SHOCK that these terrorists were easily able to bypass security. heck. Half the nation had done it before they did!

“By the way Clinton’s cruise missile attack and “allot of bluster” put al Quaida bug and chem R&D out of business at the time.”

HA HA HA ha ha ha ha. Do a google search. That Al Queda Factory was a Hospital that made medicine.

Gads.. You are so out of it. you really need to go back and do a thorogh research of the facts before you can even make an opinion about President Bush. Yet of course the opinions come flying regardless of whether the facts are striaght or not.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 8, 2004 01:01 AM

I am a proud LIBERAL, and your commentary Jeff MacMillan, makes me prouder and more certain of my liberal convictions.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at March 8, 2004 01:06 AM

In all of Bill Clinton’s 8 years, he did absolutely NOTHING at all to stop terrorism. He never initiated a war. He never did a dang thing about it.

U.S.S. Cole bombing occured and everyone expected Clinton to get tough. Our military certainly did! Boy were they absolutely disgusted to see Clinton not even bother to do anything at all!

I mean.. There wasn’t a darn thing he ever did. Now.. I support Clinton’s efforts into peacemaking between Brittain and the IRA. I support some other efforts such as KOSOVO. It was the right thing at the time, but then again we pulled out… could have done more perhaps.

The Iraqi Bombings Clinton did? Again… fine and dandy but we could have gone to war with Saddam YEARS AGO. Clinton could have done it and I prayed that he would do it and he never did it. He never did a darn thing.

The minute President Bush was elected, I knew that finally we had a commander in chief. Rather than a Commander in Briefs.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 8, 2004 01:07 AM

Tony,

I couldn’t give a rats behind about your pride. I only care about facts.

And so far you have done nothing but distort them. I would love to pool together all of the evidence and proof I have and check out what proof you have and share it. I have no idea where you are getting your ideas from because they do not fit with the proof I have.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 8, 2004 01:08 AM

He kinda lost me there. His Lefty Phrase Generator went nuts and, I think, ended up attacking itself.

Posted by: excendo at March 8, 2004 01:15 AM

I never said 9/11 happened BECAUSE of anything. I simply stated that 9/11 proves our hyperpower and military and economic superiority is vulnerable to catastrophic attack by 19 jihadist freaks with box cutters.

I google all the time, and stand by all my claims. Again, you have to look beyond the gospel according to fox and newsmax disinformation and propaganda myst and slime to uncover the truth brother.

Your pathological hatred for Clinton beguiles your logic, your perceptions, and judgement.

The Clinton misdirect is silly and moot because Clinton’s actions (right or wrong) in no way excuse or defray, or defend the long and festering list of Bush deceptions, failures, abuses, and negligence.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at March 8, 2004 01:17 AM

Just so you know. I absolutely mean what I say.

When it come to everything we know about this War on Terrorism. I am willing to give you everything I have and we can go from 1 issue to the next about the war on terrorism, step by step, and figure out what the truth is from all of the distortion.

Where you come from TONY is ‘partisan’ thinking. It is your chance to prove me wrong here. But, I don’t think you have the balls to do it.

All I need is for you to e-mail me at my free e-mail account. We can start with Clinton’s Years and work our way up to present time. I can hand you everything I have from the U.S.S. Cole Bombing, the 1st Trade Center Bombing.

I’ll hand you every news article, every congressional hearing, every thing I have. Everything. I have access to databases. I have access to Lexus Nexus. I have access to every single Congressional Hearing.

I bet you never heard of the F.A.L.N. Clemency deal have you? I’ll hand you a copy of that.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 8, 2004 01:17 AM

I’m going to bed and I’ll wait for your e-mail. Once I receive it, give me about 7 days to reply with all of the information I have starting with the first terrorist attack during Clinton’s years. That would be the World Trade Center Bombing I believe.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at March 8, 2004 01:20 AM

I accept your offer Jeff MacMillan, and no, I have not heard of the F.A.L.N. Clemency deal. Please send me the goodies. When we arrive at some shared conclusions perhaps we can post them on this or some other site, because this issue is critical to America’s future.

That said, comments like he “n all of Bill Clinton’s 8 years, he did absolutely NOTHING at all to stop terrorism. He never initiated a war. He never did a dang thing about it.” reveal who is partisan. You go on to support Kosovo and exhibit a startling lack of understanding or recollections of the events then and now in Kosovo. Yet, I welcome the debate, and look forwar to whatever “facts” you have relating to the waronterror.

I do not want to waste my time or yours bogged down in a Clinton debate, since in case you forgot, - Clinton is no longer president now, and has no power or influence in the government - Bush is president now, and Bush is accountable.

I will also remind you that Clinton did not have 9/11 to justify any radical military action against al Quaida, or Iraq, but he directed the NSA, the CIA and the FBI to find a way to bring bin Laden to justice, and execute a regime change in Iraq, and Clinton was well aware of and working diligently to counter terrorist threats.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at March 8, 2004 01:38 AM

This is the first Presidential election since 9/11. The events of that day damn well had better be part of the equation. This war is the central issue that this nation faces.

Related to this, I’m taking a poll to see when people will begin to suspect that catching Osama looks staged for political gain. I suspect that WHENEVER he’s caught (if he’s caught) there will be charges of grandstanding. Visit my little site and put your two cents in:

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/001078.html

Posted by: murdoc at March 8, 2004 09:30 AM

You have to be really, really dense or perhaps just criminally insane not to see the obvious links between B Jr. and the perpetrators of 9-11. That so many Americans may infact miss those points is a frightening prospect, unseen in the world since the rise of Hitler. Kerry is an honest, morally upstanding citizen in a political arena full of crooks and schemers. For that reason alone he is qualified to resolve the issues raised by 9-11, and that honesty is the main point on which he is attacked by opponents; a good man in the political arena doesn´t jive with their notions of tough.

Posted by: jtf at March 8, 2004 10:34 AM

“I will also remind you that Clinton did not have 9/11 to justify any radical military action against al Quaida, or Iraq, but he directed the NSA, the CIA and the FBI to find a way to bring bin Laden to justice, and execute a regime change in Iraq, and Clinton was well aware of and working diligently to counter terrorist threats.”

Clinton had from 1998 until he left office to execute the law of the land, to wit, to enact regime change in Iraq. He had opportunities to get bin Laden, and he didn’t.

The appearance of action was sufficient for him.

I am heartened, however, to see that Tony acknowledges that 9/11 is an important event, one that changed the pre-existing rules. Too bad he doesn’t follow that line of reasoning further, but that would require changing his tune pretty drastically.

MG

Posted by: MG at March 8, 2004 10:45 AM

The complaints started rollin’ before the ad in question even played. BEFORE. Get that? Carl? Politics is politics, sir, and you are slingin’ mud like nobody’s business. Except, you been slingin’ mud since you started visiting this blog months ago.

BTW - Carl. You got that DA trimmed yet? Freakin’ ducks can’t fly without them rudders…

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 8, 2004 11:19 AM

The secret of knowing what John Kerry is going to do next is simple. Look to his past. He lives in it. He follows time worn formulas that have proven themselves to him. The past is what he beleives in. To become a President, like JFK, one must have service on a small boat in combat. One must have medals. One must have a series of jobs in the public eye. Follow the formula.

This is not the first time John Kerry used womens suffering to pull the emotional strings of the voters. He learned the power of such images a very long time ago. He is a Master of it. His cameras captured the very images of these heart rending scenes. He has committed them to memory. They are part of the formula………………

NOTE: As a Vietnam Era Veteran, I abhor the people that run the organization that owns these photographs. The Vietnam Veterans Against the War. They are traitors to every veteran that has worn the uniform. However, thru these pictures you can see and understand the depth to which John Kerry will go to use women who greive for their loved ones. Just scroll thru the pictures……….you’ll understand.

http://www.greenberet.net/Kerry/VVAW/dewey3.htm

Posted by: ET at March 8, 2004 11:28 AM

you are some what incoherent, doc. Speak louder. Bush´s strategy is to tack into the wind. People who say he´s stupid are wrong. Stupidity is not what constitutes his mental deficiency, although at a casual glance it might appear to be.

Posted by: jtf at March 8, 2004 04:53 PM

jtf - ‘Kerry is an honest, morally upstanding citizen in a political arena full of crooks and schemers.’

Were you going for the SarcasmSocksAward with that one? LOL. ROFLMAO. I hope you like Heinz Ketchup with that omelet you’re wearin’.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 8, 2004 05:28 PM

Tony Foresta said, “I am a proud LIBERAL, and your commentary Jeff MacMillan, makes me prouder and more certain of my liberal convictions.”

Tony….you’re the kind a retarded little asswipe that I would take JOY in shoving your fu-ken’ nose as far into your brai……..no, that won’t work……shoving your nose as far as I could into your empty cranium. I know that there isn’t a fu-kin’ monkey walking on 2 legs that can do so with as little a brain as yours. Therefore, I know you work for the dnc and everything you say, immediately gets responded to by intelligent minds pushing down on the ‘flush’ handle. Tony….get a fu-kin’ life, and while you’re at it, get a legitimate education. Don’t listen to those professors that want to play with your penis while they tell you what a bad man President Bush is. They’re just not good influences on you. Ever wonder why everyone hates your fu-kin’ guts? Ponder it a little. You are definitely a ‘poster child’ for abortion.

If you were my kid, even at 19 years of age, I’d be tryin’ to find someone to abort you…..hell, I might stick a coat hanger in your eye, myself.

Fu-kin’ monkey.

Posted by: Jeff B at March 9, 2004 01:14 AM

Tony Foresta said, “(Let’s imagine your slurr about the democrats on the 9/11 investigation having some political gain in mind is true, - a contention I would challenge.)”

Man……you just don’t give up, do you? You’re a funny motherfu-ker. Survival rate would be very short in our part of the country…..I live between San Francisco and Massechuetts.

Posted by: Jeff B at March 9, 2004 01:55 AM

Still incoherent, doc. Show me some real dirt on Kerry, not some slop you picked out of your nose.

Posted by: beligerentphony at March 9, 2004 10:01 AM

beligerentphony Nah. I won’t waste my time with someone with a NIC like yours. If you REALLY want to know some of the facts about Senator Kerry, send me an email. My address is right there. Your address OTOH is a bit on the ‘tacky’ side of beligerence for my taste. Get off my case or I’ll flick one of them nasty boogers on YOUR windshield.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 9, 2004 03:14 PM

You seem a bit tense Jeff B. Calm down, or you’ll hurt yourself, and If you ever want to meet for tea, tell me when and where, and I’ll bring the honey.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at March 9, 2004 09:05 PM

Hey Jeff B.. when speaking of “legitimate education”, learn how to spell.

“I live between San Francisco and Massechuetts.”

I guess the best intelligent train of thought that can be found here in defense of the Bush presidency and its policies has now been boiled down to flicking boogers.

Looks like a great start to a really progressive second term, with all the logical consistency of the first.

Karl Rove must really be disappointed in the usefulness of this site in serving to air dirty laundry, half-truths, and distortion. All the boogers are still there for all to see.

Posted by: S. G. Poss at March 10, 2004 12:01 AM

I forgot, who was president when 9/11 happened? And who got fired over it??

Posted by: typhonus at March 10, 2004 03:13 AM

Oh thats right Bush… And lets remind ourselves what he’s done to make us safer…

A Nuclear 9/11
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: March 10, 2004

A 10-kiloton nuclear bomb (a pipsqueak in weapons terms) is smuggled into Manhattan and explodes at Grand Central. Some 500,000 people are killed, and the U.S. suffers $1 trillion in direct economic damage.

That scenario, cited in a report last year from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, could be a glimpse of our future. We urgently need to control nuclear materials to forestall that threat, but in this war on proliferation, we’re now slipping backward. President Bush (after ignoring the issue before 9/11) now forcefully says the right things — but still doesn’t do enough.

“We’re losing the war on proliferation,” Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., a military expert and executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, says bluntly.

Until recently, nuclear trends looked encouraging. President Kennedy and others in the early 1960’s expected dozens of countries to develop atomic weapons quickly, but in fact controls largely worked. Even now, only eight nations definitely possess nuclear weapons.

And there’s more good news. While I believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, at least Saddam Hussein won’t be making warheads soon. Likewise, partly thanks to Mr. Bush’s saber-rattling, Libya is abandoning its weapons program.

But all in all, the risks of a nuclear 9/11 are increasing. “I wouldn’t be at all surprised if nuclear weapons are used over the next 15 or 20 years,” said Bruce Blair, president of the Center for Defense Information, “first and foremost by a terrorist group that gets its hands on a Russian nuclear weapon or a Pakistani nuclear weapon.”

One of our biggest setbacks is in North Korea. Thanks to the ineptitude of hard-liners in Mr. Bush’s administration, and their refusal to engage in meaningful negotiations, North Korea is going all-out to make warheads. It may have just made six new nuclear weapons. Then there’s Iran, which has sought nuclear weapons since the days of the shah, and whose nuclear program seems to have public support. “I’m not sure there is a way to get an Iranian government to give it up,” a senior American official said.

Finally, there’s the real rogue nation of proliferation, Pakistan. We know that Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Islamist father of Pakistan’s bomb, peddled materials to Libya and North Korea, and we don’t know who else.

“It may be that A. Q. Khan & Associates already have passed bomb-grade nuclear fuel to the Qaeda, and we are in for the worst,” warns Paul Leventhal, founding president of the Nuclear Control Institute.

It’s mystifying that the administration hasn’t leaned on Pakistan to make Dr. Khan available for interrogation to ensure that his network is entirely closed. Several experts on Pakistan told me they believe that the administration has been so restrained because its top priority isn’t combating nuclear proliferation — it’s getting President Pervez Musharraf’s help in arresting Osama bin Laden before the November election.

Another puzzle is why an administration that spends hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq doesn’t try harder to secure uranium and plutonium in Russia and elsewhere. The bipartisan program to secure weapons of mass destruction is starved for funds — but Mr. Bush is proposing a $41 million cut in “cooperative threat reduction” with Russia.

“We’re at this crucial point,” warns Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “And how we handle these situations in the next couple of years will tell us whether the nuclear threat shrinks or explodes. Perhaps literally.”

The steps that are needed, like negotiating seriously with North Korea and securing sites in Russia, aren’t as dramatic as bombing Baghdad. But unless we act more aggressively, we will get a wake-up call from a nuclear explosion or, more likely, a “dirty bomb” that uses radioactive materials routinely lying around hospitals and factories. To clarify the stakes, here’s a scenario from the Federation of American Scientists for a modest terrorist incident:

A stick of cobalt, an inch thick and a foot long, is taken from among hundreds of such sticks at a food irradiation plant. It is blown up with just 10 pounds of explosives in a “dirty bomb” at the lower tip of Manhattan, with a one-mile-per-hour breeze blowing. Some 1,000 square kilometers in three states is contaminated, and some areas of New York City become uninhabitable for decades.

Posted by: typhonus at March 10, 2004 03:16 AM

SG,

A. Spelling corrections are the last gasp of a lost debate.

B. You were the guy crying you had been blocked from the site and had to use your wife’s name.

Glass houses and all that.

Posted by: jones at March 10, 2004 09:08 PM

S. G. Poss YOU must be referring to my post to Mr. beligerentphony! Why should anyone have to defend the President on Defense? He’s doin’ a fine job without any help from any of us. I defend him on certain issues, and I will castigate him on others, but I’ve heard nothing from you but a bunch of whining. Have you got plenty of WindshieldWasherFluid? If you’re goin’ to follow me so danged close, you’d better buy an extra gallon. I dislike TailGaters.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at March 10, 2004 11:12 PM

Anybody else find SG’s style strangely Tony-like?

As is his lack of data.

Fascinating…

Since Iraq now has a signed Constitution, I’d say Bush has his “focus” down pretty well!

Posted by: GDubya at March 12, 2004 03:53 PM

I’m amazed! The 911 Commission was formed because of the efforts of surviving victims of 911. President Bush tried everything he could to keep the commission from being formed. If he ever decides to testify there is a list of questions for him and Ms. Rice on their website http://911independentcommission.org/questions.html . One thing that truly amazes me is question number 5. I never knew that Bush knew about the first plane hitting Tower Two 15 MINUTES BEFORE he went into the classroom in Florida. 15 MINUTES? Was it for yet another photo op like the one set up on the ship returning from Iraq? As President of the United States you should be a little more concerned about planes hitting one of the most famous buildings in New York City. I’m assuming that the first plane didn’t make him angry. So it took two before the perfect picture was formed. The one splattered all over every newspaper and television station in the US… especially FOX news. The fact that Condoleeza Rice didn’t know what was going on don’t surprise me… after all, what kind of qualifications could she have had? Oil of course. She was in Chevron for nine years prior to taking the position of National Security Advisor. Nice qualifications for the person in charge of helping to protect the US from terrorists activities. Oil seems to have been the theme when selecting cabinet members. As far as the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq… where did they go? Poof! It’s magic! It sure didn’t hurt that Iraq is the second largest oil producing country in the world did it.

Posted by: Becky at March 29, 2004 12:27 AM

Subject: Do you remember?

The events are actual cuts from the past history. They actually happened! Do you remember?

1. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

2. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

3. During the 1980’s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

4. In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

5. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year-old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davy Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

6. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

7. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

8. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

9. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill’s women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

10. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

11. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

12. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

Nope, I really don’t see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you?

So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, Secret agents who are members of the President’s security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning former Governors, and leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 & 40
alone because of profiling.

Let’s send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other dunder-headed attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel doubly ashamed of themselves if they have any such sense.

YOU BE THE JUDGE!

Posted by: Amanda at May 3, 2004 03:25 PM