May 01, 2004


Another foreign leader thinks John Kerry's a swell guy.

Celebrating the 29th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, the North Vietnamese general who led his forces to victory said Friday he was grateful to leaders of the U.S. anti-war movement, one of whom was presidential candidate John Kerry.

"I would like to thank them," said Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap, now 93, without mentioning Kerry by name.

Kerry may be known in the US as our most liberal Senator and a waffler par excellence, but among the guerillas of the world, from Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq, he is known for the help he provided them in the Vietnam era. His smears mainstreamed moonbatisms about our troops, and helped demoralize a nation into accepting an unnecessary defeat.

What kind of message would electing Kerry and rejecting Bush send to our enemies--enemies who have undoubtedly studied the tactics used by the one power to defeat the United States? It would tell the world, and more importantly our enemies, that we haven't the stomach to prosecute this war to victory. And it would probably be an accurate message, too.

MORE: Kerry egged on a new generation of angry war veterans today. "We really need to get folks out there marching again," Kerry said. "We fought for these things when we came back 35 years ago and we're going to fight for them again." Seems the Dems are pulling out every trick trying to get the country radicalized against Bush.

Posted by B. Preston at 12:42 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


Instapundit has a recent headline, SOME GOOD STUFF FROM KERRY: "I believe that failure is not an option in Iraq."

Could it really be that John Kerry is finally showing some strength of character? The surprising quote caught my eye, but I knew immediately it was too good to be true unless Kerry only gave a one-sentence speech. There had to be some flip-flop catch to it I thought. And boy was there ever! Multiple redundant flip-flops in fact (Kerry uses backup flip-flops to ensure a complete flip before the next flop). Here he is laying out how we've already failed and how failure is very likely in the rest of the same speech:

We now know that our failure to forge and lead a true coalition has forced thousands in the National Guard and Reserves to be away from families and jobs for more than a year with no end in sight.

...failure is not an excuse for more of the same.

...failure to move forward will be seen as a failure of American leadership.

...We must accept that the effort to date has failed: it must be rethought and reformed.

...If we fail to create viable Iraqi security forces - military and police - there is no successful exit

...In light of all the mistakes that have been made, no one can say that success is certain, but I can say that if we do not try, failure is all too likely.

So it turns out we've already failed, but that "failure is not an excuse" for the likely failure he sees ahead. I think Sen. Kerry has found himself a new favorite word, and he's planning to hammer it deep into our brains. He also says in the speech, "We need to put pride aside [and grease the peace?] to build a stable Iraq." Good advice he might want to follow himself. Can you believe he has the nerve to lecture others on the subject of pride during a war? Wow! I thought we had already seen the peak of his own unproductive wartime arrogance. Here's more:

On Sunday [April 18th], Kerry said “we cannot fail” in Iraq and [cast] himself as the only candidate who can enlist foreign help to make sure the United States does not fail.

But he acknowledged a Vietnam-type scenario too. “If we are stuck for a long period of time in a quagmire where young Americans are dying without a sense of that being able to be achieved, I think most Americans will decide that's failure.”

See the smooth bait and switch? John Kerry bravely says "we cannot fail" -- but then he says he's the only one that can prevent failure. The whole topic is simply a selfish election ploy. That same week, on April 14th:

Bush aides who assailed Kerry said they were reacting to statements by him in which he criticized the "arrogance" of the United States for going it virtually alone in Iraq and suggested that U.S. troops were targets as a result of Bush's policies.

Marc Racicot, the former Montana governor who is chairman of Bush's reelection campaign, said, "There is now even further evidence of the fact that Sen. Kerry continues with an approach that is cynical and defeatist, and it's embraced within a political attack that is seriously undermining our efforts in Iraq and in the war on terror."

...Referring to a recent comment by Kerry, Racicot added, "To say something like we need to get the target off the backs of our troops, for God's sake, if that could be any more extravagantly irresponsible, I don't know how."

Kerry has called for an international approach in Iraq and has said that the United Nations should be given responsibility for rebuilding the country's government and infrastructure. However, Kerry, who in 2002 voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, declined Wednesday to declare Bush's Iraq policy a failure.

"No, it's not a failure today," he said.

OK, it wasn't a failure on that day. Fine, but let's see what he said on April 8th:

The administration's handling of developments in Iraq represents "one of the greatest failures of diplomacy and failures of judgment that I have seen in all the time that I've been in public life," Kerry said in an interview with American Urban Radio Networks.

It's apparent that all the bold B.S he's feeding us about how "failure is not an option" and how "we cannot fail" is not even remotely brave leadership or even minimally "good stuff" from Kerry at all. In fact he's lying. He has said, and obviously believes, that we've failed so far and Bush will continue to fail. But that Dean-like attack doesn't do well with focus groups, and the White House smacked him down on it too. So he's now using blatantly deceptive, selfish, arrogant wartime doublespeak. He's afraid to say it strait, but he's warning that if we want victory we better elect him or else all the failures he drones on about will surely get worse. In other words, we've screwed everything up and failure is our only destiny without him. He has actually built more deception into that threat too, because it's electing a dissembler like him that would truly result in national humiliation.

He's only a candidate and already John Kerry is a miserable failure.

There is a name for Kerry's credibility problem: Bill Clinton. Like Al Gore before him, Kerry works in the shadow of the master....

Clinton left Gore and Kerry with empty reservoirs—anyone who gave them the benefit of the doubt felt certain of being set up.

On the question of trust, Kerry is like Clinton in some ways and unlike him in others. Unfortunately for his campaign, both the similarities and the differences work to Kerry's disadvantage.

The essential similarity is that both men are lawyers more than they are liars. With Kerry, as with Clinton, the truth is always subject to further revision. Additional details are provided grudgingly after they are withheld. Hairsplitting distinctions are employed to frame every damaging revelation. Partial answers are justified because the questioner didn't ask specifically and presciently for the exact details the candidate didn't really want to provide. Mutually exclusive alternatives are simultaneously embraced.

...The fundamental difference is that Clinton, like Holly Golightly in Breakfast at Tiffany's, was a real phony, where Kerry, like Al Gore, is just a phony phony.

...According to a new biography of Kerry by three Boston Globe reporters, "He is trailed by a reputation for political opportunism. . . . Unlike many who are driven to succeed in public life by a core belief system, the arc of Kerry's political career is defined by a restless search for the issues, individuals and causes to fulfill a nearly lifelong ambition" for the White House. So, what is it that John Kerry really believes in? John Kerry. Anything else is subject to further clarification.

UPDATE: Speaking of failure, I thought John Kerry didn't fall down. (via InstaPundit)

Posted by Chris Regan at 10:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


WARNING: Laughing at Democrats' radicalism may be a firing offense

Some Democrats aren't laughing at the satirical schedule for the Democratic National Convention, an Internet-driven joke spread in part by the leader of the Massachusetts National Guard. It opens with a flag-burning ceremony and moves on to the John Kerry "fake medal toss" and the "Free Saddam" pep rally. . . .

Massachusetts Democrats condemned [Adjutant Gen. George W.] Keefe, saying the e-mail calls into question whether he should continue to head the National Guard, which could have a role in convention security. State Democratic Chairman Phil Johnston called for Keefe to resign.

"Certainly there are more important issues that General Keefe should be concentrating on, other than using government computers to send silly and derogatory e-mails to state employees," party spokeswoman Jane Lane said.

In a statement issued Friday, Keefe said: "While I did not compose this e-mail, I did receive and subsequently forward it to several acquaintances. On reflection, I regret that action."

The following should be considered an attachment to a hard news report on professionalism in the workplace. All state and federal employees should forward this link to co-workers to ensure broad awareness of what the newest security threat looks like. To prevent job loss, refrain from laughing and please do not cut and paste.

2004 Democratic National Committee Convention - Official Program

6:00pm - Opening flag burning ceremony.
6:00pm - Opening secular prayers by Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton
6:30pm - Anti-war concert by Barbra Streisand.
6:55pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
7:00pm - Tribute theme to France.
7:10pm - Collect offerings for al-Zawahri defense fund.
7:25pm - Tribute theme to Germany.
7:45pm - Anti-war rally (Moderated by Michael Moore)
8:25pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
8:30pm - Terrorist appeasement workshop.
9:00pm - Gay marriage ceremony (both male and female couples)
9:30pm - * Intermission *
10:00pm - Posting the Iraqi colors by Sean Penn and Tim Robbins
10:10pm - Re-enactment of Kerry’s fake medal toss.
10:20pm - Cameo by Dean ’Yeeearrrrrrrg!’
10:30pm - Abortion demonstration by N.A.R.A.L.
10:40pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
10:50pm - Pledge of allegiance to the United Nations
11:00pm - Multiple gay marriage cermony (threesomes, mixed and same sex).
11:15PM - Maximizing Welfare workshop.
11:30pm - ’Free Saddam’ pep rally.
11:59PM - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
12:00pm - Nomination of democratic candidate.

Posted by Chris Regan at 01:35 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

April 30, 2004


Call it "moonbat fatigue."

I'm not the kind of person who can say the same thing about the same things day in and day out. When an event occurs, I comment on it and move on. When a similar event occurs, I'll probably comment, and when another similar event occurs, I might comment. Or I might not. I get bored whacking away at the same old things.

The past couple of weeks' news has mostly washed over me, and I've mostly let it slide because, well for one I was pretty busy, but it also was just mostly more of the same. Democrats saying completely unpatriotic and counterproductive things about the war, then being incredibly prickly and noxious when anyone even thinks about calling them on it. The press--Nightline, etc--using their positions to try and create news instead of report it. Republicans acting like they're missing a gene, or maybe just don't know how to respond rapidly, and ending up letting opportunities to a) point out Democrat perfidy, b) expose UN corruption c) take a whack at the farce called the 9-11 Commission d) capitalize on one of the few teachable moments this nation gets regarding the war and just how dangerous the enemy really is.

To take the latter, why hasn't someone from the GOP side of the aisle made a bigger deal out of the foiled Jordan WMD attack? Why hasn't someone on the GOP side crowed that this plot ties up all the justifications for the war in Iraq and the war at large as justified and necessary? In that attack you have terrorists obtaining WMDs from a rogue state for use against another state for the purpose of killing thousands and destabilizing a government. You have Saddam's bloody fingerprints right next to Osama bin Laden's bloody fingerprints, and proof that left alone the terrorists will kill many, many thousands all around the world until their narrow and violent version of Islam becomes the law of the globe. You have what amounts to a kind of Rosetta Stone in that one attack--it explains and illuminates everything else about the war and why we must fight and win it. Where is the vaunted Bush communications machine to educate the American people and the world?

I'm just fed up. Why does it take unpaid bloggers to do a better job of selling the war than highly paid operatives can do? I don't get it, I really don't.

I'm also tired of trying to convince people that just won't be convinced. I've whined about this before, but take a look at one non-partisan case. I think it demonstrates pretty well just how thick-headed some people are. Michael Jackson was indicted today on 10 counts, including child molestation and conspiracy. If convicted he will face serious jail time, and even if he isn't he has still been indicted for molesting little boys. You'd think being indicted for molesting little boys would cause his fans--and their parents--to spurn him, burn his records, buy a second glove, and maybe, just maybe, reevaluate their opinion of the King of Pop. But you'd be wrong. Everywhere the guy goes he's still mobbed by legions of adoring fans. He hasn't put out a hit record in years. He dangles his kids from balconies, when he isn't forcing them to wear bizarre masks in public. He looks like somebody turned his face inside out and patched it back onto his skull with Elmers glue. What is wrong with those people who still mob him and scream at him? What would it take to convince him that he's not worth their time? They wouldn't be convinced that he's a bad man if the prosecution entered a webcam video of him in the act with a kid. They'd just ignore it.

That's where we are as a culture. The paradigm shift that took place on 9-11 has worn off, and people that for a few minutes believed in national defense have again migrated to moonbat land. We're no longer united on the war, and we haven't the stomach as a people to win it. We have sitting senators aping terrorists, and other sitting senators (Biden, in this case) actually declaring how happy they are that Iraq has us sufficiently tied down that we can't prosecute the war in other theatres.

I'm sure that makes al Qaeda happy, too. And it probably lets Kim Jong-Il get a couple hours more sleep every night.

You know what's going to happen? Do you know how this thing is going to end?

One of two ways. Either we win or we lose. It's that simple.

If we win, the world is a better place. The last standing governments that resemble Nazi ideology will have been replaced with something better. We won't have to fear another 9-11, or an attack or series of attacks that make 9-11 look like a day at the beach. We'll still be a free republic, ruled by law and tradition.

If we lose, the world is a very dark place. Sharia, the harsh Islamic law that's already sweeping Europe and Canada, become our law too, or at least a parallel legal system here. We kowtow to tinhorn nutbags who threaten us. We're probably no longer either free or a republic. And millions of us have been killed in waves of attacks, and millions of us end up political prisoners for offending our mullah masters. Women's rights? A thing of the past.

The problem is, our moonbats have gone mainstream, and the result is we may lose this war. Just as young John F. Kerry mainstreamed the "baby killers" and war criminals smear of Vietnam vets in 1971 and helped the Communists defeat us, today's fringe ideas have become mainstream and are encouraging the terrorists. Howard Dean brought "Bush KNEW" to the political campaign, Richard Clarke has more or less kept it there, and people who know that it's impossible have brought "Bush LIED!!! Thousands DIED!!!" to such a simmer that it dominates our entire view of Iraq. It's actually more or less a fringe view to assert that Saddam did have WMDs.

Even though terrorists just tried to kill 80,000 in Jordan using Saddam's WMDs. And even though the existence of Saddam's WMDs was official policy of the Clinton administration, and even though that administration tried to take us to war over those WMDs in 1998. I guess Bush lied us into that fight, too, even though he was governor of Texas and Clinton chickened out.

So I'm just fed up. The moonbats are full of crap and they know it, but the non-moonbats are doing a terrible job of countering the moonbats and exposing the fact that they're full of crap. I've got moonbat fatigue from trying to do Karl Rove's job for him.

I've also got moonbat fatigue from having to chase down every little smear they come up with. Somebody's gotta do it.

To take a recent one, the Democrats and the press took a snippet from Bob Woodward's latest book and turned it into a Saudi oil conspiracy theory. You know the one I'm talking about--it had Bush getting the Saudi's to help his re-election by knocking down the price of oil. The Dems went ballistic and the press egged them on.

Turns out, of course, that it never happened. But in doing research on that story, Chris Regan stumbled onto a juicy blast from the past. Did you know that the Clinton administration did try to make a backroom deal with the Saudis on the price of oil, back in 1999? Betcha didn't. Betcha didn't know something else about it too--the Clintonistas wanted the Saudis to jack up the price of oil. The Clintonistas wanted you and me to pay more per gallon of gas then we were paying at the time. Google is a wonderful thing, kids. From Friday, November 3, 2000:

Contradictory and self-serving policies led the Clinton-Gore administration to cause the current skyrocketing oil prices, say Middle East and petroleum industry analysts.

By interfering in the oil markets in 1998 when prices were perceived by some to be too low, the administration put into motion the huge current run-up of prices, according to Matthew Simmons, who has tracked oil prices for 30 years as the head of a Houston-based investment bank, Simmons & Co. International.

As if that isn't enough, Simmons and others also believe the current Middle East tensions could tempt Saddam Hussein -- who has become a major source of oil for the U.S. -- to make a malevolent move, and soon.

Stop the tape for a second--Saddam was a major oil supplier to the US back in '99 and 2000? Betcha didn't know that either. You don't suppose UNSCAM slithered its way to our shores, do you?

At an Oct. 18 conference in New York sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, the Energy Department's Director of Policy, Melanie Kenderdine, described efforts she and Energy Secretary Bill Richardson made in late 1998 to get assistance from the president's National Economic Council when another crisis gripped the oil industry -- not of prices too high, but too low.

At that time, world oil prices had plunged to historic lows of less than $10 per barrel, sending the world oil and gas industry into disarray. Bankruptcies loomed on the horizon.

The crisis was sparked by the collapse of the Asian economies at a time when OPEC had ramped up production to meet anticipated new demand. It was aggravated by the sudden inflow into the market of nearly 2 million barrels per day of Iraqi oil, released under the United Nations' oil-for-food program, which was strongly supported by the administration.

By late 1998, said Kenderdine, Richardson and other top Energy officials were seeking White House support for specific measures to help the U.S. oil and gas industry.

Simmons met with Kenderdine in December 1998 as she was putting together a white paper laying out possible strategies.

"Richardson and Melanie were fighting a war," Simmons recalls. "But it was a war against the rest of the administration. [Vice President] Gore and [Interior Secretary Bruce] Babbitt wanted the prices to stay down, as a spur to the economy, while Richardson wanted higher prices to help the oil and gas industry."

Richardson's arguments, says Simmons, fell on deaf ears at first, "because Gore hates the oil and gas industry."

An administration divided? A vice president wielding too much power for personal pique? And that was Mr. Gore who wanted oil prices to stay low for the express purpose of harming US industry. Nice guy. Betcha didn't know that, did you? Will it change your mind about which administration should rightfully be called the "Oil Presidency?" Probably not.

There are scores of stories like this one out there. The president from Hope that many to this day call great and wonderful was probably the most corrupt man ever to occupy the White House. He turned our intel agencies into industrial spies, which tended to conflict with their mission of tracking terrorists. He gutted budgets and sold high tech warhead designs to the Chinese military, all the while protected by Jamie Gorelick's DoJ firewall. His policies or lack of policies led pretty directly to 9-11.

But it's Bush that gets called names, and it's for Bush that the radical pro-aborts wish pre-emptive death. And to far too many moonbats, it's all Bush's fault.

I've had it. Is there a cure for moonbat fatigue? I've got it bad.

Posted by B. Preston at 11:28 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack


A scientist gets up close to a few rare species of migrant moonbats. He lived to tell the tale--and he got pictures!

Posted by B. Preston at 12:50 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack


It turns out it's not just Canadian gays cracking down on Christian thoughtcrimes. Now the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force is about to crack down on opponents American-style.

The head of a national homosexual organization is vowing to politically "punish," "terrify" and "torture" activists who oppose his organization's agenda on "gay" rights – which he says would give him "endless satisfaction."

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force in Washington, D.C., made the comments in yesterday's edition of Between the Lines, a Detroit area homosexual newsmagazine, the American Family Association of Michigan points out.

In addition to declaring his desire for retribution against "local legislators and leaders" who oppose the homosexual agenda, Foreman expressed a goal beyond securing legal same-sex marriage, that is gaining other means besides marriage by which homosexuals could access public and private financial benefits.

Foreman told the interviewer of his plans to go after his opponents.

"I'm … interested in going after, politically, local legislators and leaders that have launched these anti-gay initiatives," he explained. "'We beat you, now we're gonna go back and we're going to affirmatively punish you' – people who launch this stuff, so that they understand not only that they're not going to win, but that there are consequences to it.

"We would set up a [political action committee] and go in and terrify them with a credible challenge. ... So we go in, for a modest investment of money and torture these people, which would give me endless satisfaction. And the word would go out very quickly, 'You know what, this really isn't worth it.'"

Foreman was asked: "Is getting the right to marriage for same-sex couples something the Task Force is interested in?"

He responded: "We want full equality under the law, which, right now, means the freedom to marry. But we're also hopeful that we create different ways in which people can form relationships and families that don't come with all the baggage and the downsides of marriage. One of the great things about where we're going is that we are creating new ways for people to relate, new ways for people to obtain rights and benefits."

So they want to destroy the sanctity of marriage for...nothing? Ah that's right, the primary goal is to punish and torture us so we learn there are consequences to opposing the rest of their agenda -- and there is more to come. Seems a whiff of fascism is drifting down from north of the border.

OK, now compare the real gay agenda you know to the deceptive smoke Andrew Sullivan fills the blogosphere with every other day:

STRENGTHENING MARRIAGE: In Massachusetts, some employers are preparing to get rid of "domestic partnership" benefits for gay couples. Once gays are eligible for real civil marriage, they will have no more need for marriage-lite options (and such marriage-lite options need not be extended to straights). If that isn't a truly conservative development, I don't know what is.

Oh yes Andrew, so harmless -- and even conservative! The spin game is up my friend. You've been outed by one of your own. Matt Foreman deserves credit for being honest and not hiding behind a veil of innocence. Now the radical gay agenda and tactics can be debated out in the open.

UPDATE: You'll be seeing this gay agenda and new global morality of Mikhail Gorbechev, Maurice Strong and Mary Robinson gradually implemented by U.S. Courts in coming years:

What are the fundamental [human] rights that Mary Robinson says all nations must recognise?

One, they include the repeal of all laws condemning homosexual sodomy.

Two, the legalisation of same-sex marriages.

Three, mandatory and graphic sexual training for children. She has three paragraphs on the last of these. She says the training has to include instruction, beginning when the child's at the age of 10, on how to engage in sexual intercourse with members of the same sex. Since this will of necessity be graphic, she says, "such materials should be exempted from pornography and obscenity laws".

Four, she says that all laws regulating prostitution must be eliminated. Prostitution, in short, must be legalised.

Five, she says that the age of consent for all sexual activities should be lowered to 14.

Finally, and most troublingly, she says: "There must be creation of penalties for anyone who vilifies individuals engaged in same-sex relationships." In short, it's not enough simply to normalise, in one fell swoop, all of international law related to homosexuality. We have to provide penalties.

What are the penalties she's talking about? Might it be the International Criminal Court? Turn to the guidelines on page 14, which emphasise the need for "the sensitisation of judicial branches of governments, both nationally and internationally." She suggests we need to "provide judicial education and the development of judicial materials".

Her judicial education idea has helped so far to implement the first two objectives. And new penalties for opposing this radical revolution are sweeping Canada and beginning to appear in the U.S. There's no longer a need for an International Criminal Court now that our Supreme Court is being sensitized and following Mary Robinson and her fellow EU/UN power brokers instead of the Constitution. Who whould have thought that one day the agenda of Mikhail Gorbechev, Maurice Strong and Mary Robinson would one day supercede the U.S. Constitution? Judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg are the very people the great George Washington warned us about when our nation began:

"Our island or lone ranger mentality is beginning to change," Ginsburg said during a speech to the American Constitution Society, a liberal lawyers group holding its first convention.

Justices "are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives," said Ginsburg, who has supported a more global view of judicial decision making.

Ginsburg cited an international treaty in her vote in June to uphold the use of race in college admissions.

...Ginsburg said Saturday that the Internet is making decisions of courts in other countries more readily available in America, and they should not be ignored. [Use Google to help amend the Constitution? Liberal kook alert!]

"While you are the American Constitution Society, your perspective on constitutional law should encompass the world," she told the group of judges, lawyers and students.

Most people don't realize it, but this push to implement global laws in the U.S. is what the gigantic battle over judicial nominations is all about. This is why the Dems must have a litmus test to block Christians while also blocking anyone not willing to modify the Constitution from the bench using stuff they found on the Internet.

MORE: Bryan also covered THE ORIGINS OF THE GAY LEFT'S ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL COUP in an earlier post on the core ideology of transnational progressivism.

MORE:'Bible as hate speech' signed into law in Canada

The bill, passed 59-11 by the Senate on Wednesday, adds sexual orientation as a protected category in Canada's genocide and hate-crimes legislation, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison.

The House of Commons passed the bill in September, 141-110.

As WorldNetDaily reported, opponents have feared if it becomes law, the Bible will be deemed "hate literature" under the criminal code in certain instances, as evidenced by the case of a Saskatchewan man fined by a provincial human-rights tribunal for taking out a newspaper ad with Scripture references to verses about homosexuality.

Here's to you, Mrs. Robinson.

Posted by Chris Regan at 12:50 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

April 29, 2004


Interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN the other day, Karen Hughes said the following when asked about President Bush's position on abortion:

BLITZER: There is a clear difference when it comes to abortion rights between the president and his Democratic challenger, John Kerry. In your opinion, Karen, how big of an issue will this abortion rights issue be in this campaign?

HUGHES: Well, Wolf, it's always an issue. And I frankly think it's changing somewhat. I think after September 11th the American people are valuing life more and realizing that we need policies to value the dignity and worth of every life.

And President Bush has worked to say, let's be reasonable, let's work to value life, let's try to reduce the number of abortions, let's increase adoptions.

And I think those are the kind of policies that the American people can support, particularly at a time when we're facing an enemy, and really the fundamental difference between us and the terror network we fight is that we value every life. It's the founding conviction of our country, that we're endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, the right to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Unfortunately our enemies in the terror network, as we're seeing repeatedly in the headlines these days, don't value any life, not even the innocent and not even their own.

In the context of the ongoing, neverending abortion debate, and especially in the context of this election year which has seen big-name Democrats accuse the President of the United States of lying America into war for purely political reasons, Hughes' comments are fairly tame stuff. She didn't directly compare abortionists or abortion supporters to terrorists--she just said that 9-11 has caused some Americans to realize anew the value of life, which is most likely true, and that that new realization has caused some of those Americans to become closer to the pro-life point of view on abortion, again probably true. She also outlined some government policies advanced by President Bush that pro-life and pro-choice Americans alike can support as long as they have a basic regard for the value of life, again true. Like I said, fairly tame stuff.

Well, the pro-aborts at Planned Non-Parenthood and NOW and NARAL are having a conniption fit about it. As is typical of that shrill industrial lobby, that collection of nags is demanding that Hughes apologize for--get this--making a direct comparison between anyone who supports abortion and terrorists. And if Hughes had made such a comparison, the pro-aborts would have a point. But as the quote above demonstrates, Hughes did no such thing.

I suspect that the pro-aborts are a bit touchy about the notion of "valuing life," they hate when their values are apparently exposed and criticized, and that's why they're trying to put Hughes on the defensive. Additionally, they know they're losing ground on the whole abortion issue as science drives them into an ever smaller "viability" box. So they took an innocuous comment about how our culture values life more than the terrorists do--which is undeniably true and the whole reason we're at war right now--and took it as an indictment of themselves. One can only laugh at their political stupidity and marvel at their amorality. They would have been smarter to pipe down instead of showing attentive citizens just how out of the mainstream they really are.

They are misreading Hughes' statement so badly because they (the "they" being the hard-core pro-aborts who spearhead the abortion industry and movement) don't really value life, and therefore see any criticism of terrorists as not valuing life as reflective of themselves and their own attitudes. I'm not saying that anyone who is pro-choice automatically does not value life (though I do basically believe that pro-choicers on average do not hold life in as high a regard as pro-lifers), and I'm not arguing that pro-choicers are the same as terrorists in their regard for life. I don't have to say any of that--the Eleanor Smeals of the world are doing just fine saying it themselves. And in demanding that Hughes apologize for comparing pro-aborts to terrorists when she didn't, that is exactly what the pro-aborts are saying--that their view of the value of human life is no better than the terrorists' view of the same.

And if that's the image the hard-core pro-aborts want to project to the American people, who am I to stop them?

Posted by B. Preston at 03:52 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack


This is interesting news: is reporting [no free link] that Sinclair Broadcast Group has ordered its ABC-affiliated stations not to carry tomorrow's "Nightline," which will air the names and photos of soldiers who have been killed in combat in Iraq.

Sinclair General Counsel Barry Faber tells the site: "We find it to be contrary to the public interest."

The boycott will affect eight ABC-affiliated Sinclair stations. is also reporting that ABC is now beefing up the body count by including non-combat deaths. If ABC really cared about our dead soldiers they wouldn't try to play them against the President every night. They should stick with offering infants as prizes in reality shows for their sweeps stunts.

...the network aired a sensational promo for Friday's segment, which pits five desperate couples against each other for the privilege of adopting a 16-year-old's baby.

A very personal, intimate process was made to look like a reality-show contest, with prospective parents dubbed "winners" and "losers."

"While I haven't seen the show, it definitely sounds like the marketing department at ABC was attempting to add a reality TV spin, which is definitely an all-time low - especially when children are at stake," says radio journalist Jane Braverman, who's adopting a child.

. . .Jeffrey Schneider, head of ABC publicity, blamed the controversy on the misleading promotional spots.

"Clearly, the first promo that ran was leaving people with the wrong impression of what this hour is all about," said Schneider.

Actually, ABC spinners are clearly lying about what they knew when. First ABC Nightline lied about not knowing the body count was scheduled for sweeps week. Then you can see the network also lied about the 20/20 reality TV promo being "misleading" here:

In a naked pursuit of ratings, the network kicks off the May sweeps - an important ratings season on television - with a special on its 20/20 news magazine program today about 16-year-old unwed "Jessica's" decision about which couple most deserves her unborn baby.

"I was kind of playing God," said Jessica on ABC's website. . .

"We were joking about the fact it's like The Bachelor show. You're in or you're out tonight," prospective father Tab Brown said.

So the infant-as-reality-TV-prize was an inside joke during ABC's filming of the program. One segment even includes the typical game show "lighting round" of questions, and when one couple uses the wrong adoption terminology they get booted.

It's very clear the producers decided to have some fun with an adoption and to play off the popularity of reality TV. Their news division made a deal with the ratings devil and now they don't want to admit it. The controversial promo wasn't misleading at all, it accurately reflected what the contestants and the network already knew about the way the adoption contest played out. I'm sure they're re-editing the show back to respectability as we speak.

Posted by Chris Regan at 11:36 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack


Have the Democrats, as a party, no sense of decency anymore? Have they no sense of fairness, right and wrong, or patriotism?

Evidence abounds that they don't.

Example #1--Rep. Jim McDermott is an idiot, part 3,678:

Congressman Jim McDermott caused a minor stir on the House floor on Tuesday when he omitted the phase "under God" while leading the Pledge of Allegiance.

That the Washington state representative would do so is no surprise. He was one of only seven lawmakers who voted against a 2003 House resolution — which passed 400-7 — that condemned the 9th Circuit ruling that struck the phase from teacher-led recitations in public schools. In 2002, he voted "present" for a similar resolution that the House approved 416-2.


When asked about the incident, the congressman's spokesman, Mike DeCesare, explained that his boss "hesitated, unsure of what he should do because the words 'under God' are under court review."

Given that McDermott has twice taken a controversial stand on a major Supreme Court dispute, one would hope that he comprehends the basic issues of the controversy. The Pledge case raises the narrow legal question of whether impressionable school children in a semi-coercive setting may be led by a teacher to say "under God."

Regardless of what the Court decides, adults are and will remain free to invoke God in public or governmental settings. No question exists that "under God" is perfectly constitutional on the House floor. Religious statements are protected by both the First Amendment's free-exercise clause and free-speech clause.

All of this seems lost on Rep. McDermott, who appears not to understand our most basic constitutional rights.

Yes, this is the same Jim McDimwitt who went to Baghdad and kissed Saddam's derriere during the pre-invasion runup, giving the filler of mass graves a clean bill of health and accusing President Bush of lying about, well, everything. For some reason, McDermott hasn't commented on reports that Saddam's weapons have been found.

Example #2--Sen. Frank Lautenberg called the Vice President of the United States a "chicken hawk:"

And New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg says the "lead chickenhawk" is Vice President Dick Cheney, for his criticism of John Kerry.

Lautenberg said on the Senate floor today that chickenhawks "talk tough on national defense and military issues and cast aspersions on others." But when it was their turn to serve, Lautenberg said those people were "AWOL from courage."

Yes, this is the same Senator who was illegally installed on the Dem ticket in New Jersey when corrupt Senator Robert Torricelli flamed out at the last minute. He broke the law, probably bought off the judge in the case, and got himself a seat in the Senate. He's using that seat to blast away at the VP in the middle of a shooting war. Disgraceful.

Not to be outdone, McDimwitt had to up the ante:

Meantime, on the House floor, Washington state Congressman Jim McDermott characterized President Bush's service in the Air National Guard as "missing without action." Bush has been dogged by allegations he was allowed to miss months of his training.

Do you sense a stench of desperation in all these Dems trying to create Bush was AWOL v3.0? I do.

Example #3--Jamie Gorelick still sits on the commission formed to investigate 9-11. Gorelick, you may recall, wrote a memo that raised and strengthened the firewall between law enforcement and intelligence, and that very firewall has been cited by Republicans and Democrats alike as a major contributing factor in preventing our government from unravelling the 9-11 plot in time to stop it. Word today is that Gorelick was even more deeply involved than previously disclosed:

As the No. 2 person in the Clinton Justice Department, Ms. Gorelick rejected advice from the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who warned against placing more limits on communications between law-enforcement officials and prosecutors pursuing counterterrorism cases, according to several internal documents written in summer 1995.

"It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required," U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White wrote Ms. Gorelick six years before the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon.

"Our experience has been that the FBI labels of an investigation as intelligence or law enforcement can be quite arbitrary, depending upon the personnel involved and that the most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating," she wrote.

The documents — released yesterday by the Justice Department at the request of two Senate Republicans — drew renewed calls for Ms. Gorelick to testify publicly before the September 11 commission about the so-called "wall" between law enforcement and intelligence agencies that many have blamed for allowing the 2001 terrorist attacks to occur.

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said yesterday that Ms. Gorelick's policies regarding the wall contributed to "blinding America to this terrible threat."

Also, he said, the newly released memos raised apparent conflicts with statements Ms. Gorelick has made recently defending herself and her role in the Clinton Justice Department.

Gorelick is hopelessly compromised, yet she sits on the 9-11 Commission with the full blessing of Democrats across the board. She is strongly defended by Commission "brother" former Sen. Bob Kerrey, who is Example #4:

Catapulted back into the limelight thanks to the mass murder of 3,000 innocent men, women, and children, Kerrey took advantage of his terrorist-induced celebrity to appear on Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Now, it would be one thing if Kerrey used his privileged position to inform Stewart's younger audience of the gravity of the 9/11 panel's task. But instead, Kerrey yukked it up. First, he dished with Stewart about President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney's upcoming private meeting with the commission. When Stewart mocked the president's "buddy system," Kerrey guffawed: "He is bringing his buddy, that's exactly right, for safety." Emboldened by audience applause, Kerrey riffed that it was more like "Screw you, buddy." Asked by Stewart whether people were really blaming each other over the terrorist attacks during closed hearings, Kerrey snorted: "Oh, Jee-zus, yeah." More audience approval. (Taking the Lord's name in vain is always good for a few cheap laughs.)

Next, echoing a profanity uttered earlier in the show, Kerrey blurted out with a clownish grin: "Life is [expletive bleeped]." When Stewart proposed that Kerrey ask the vice president, "What the [expletive bleeped] is wrong with you people?" Kerrey cracked up and promised to use the question. And when Stewart called Attorney General John Ashcroft a "big [expletive bleeped]," Kerrey chortled some more.

After nearly ten minutes of knee-slapping hilarity, it was time for Kerrey to wrap things up. Instead of paying lip service to those who died in the terrorist attacks, Kerrey used his last moments on the program to suck up to Stewart. The Daily Show, Kerrey cooed, was one of the few shows he TiVo'ed. The other, he joked, was [the PBS kids' show] Boohbah. Ho-ho-ho.

We are at war. These are serious times. Kerrey and Gorelick both are charged with the solemn responsibility to handle their duties on the Commission with fairness and dignity, yet all we can get from them is obfuscation on the one hand and disrespectful yuck-ups on the other. Both need to go from the Commission, immediately.

But they won't, because they fit right in with their own party--a collection of liars, crooks and America haters (with the notable exception of Zell Miller). These people are doing just about everything they can to make it easier for terrorists to strike us, and they're proud of it.

The Democrats are a disgrace.

Posted by B. Preston at 08:34 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

April 28, 2004


Post mortems are already underway--why did Rep. Pat Toomey lose to Sen. Arlen Specter? And more importantly, what role did President Bush's and Senator Rick Santorum's prominent, vocal and strangely fixated support for Specter play in Toomey's narrow defeat? It looks to most conservatives, myself included, that Bush's and Santorum's support have kept a senate seat in very liberal hands for another 6 years.

During the hotly contested primary, two arguments emerged that were designed to sway the conservative base to vote either for Toomey or for Specter. The first argument, pro-Toomey, was fairly straightforward: Pat Toomey is a conservative, therefore helping him defeat Specter means giving the Republican majority in the Senate a more conservative tilt (supposing Toomey would go on to win the general election and keep the seat in GOP hands). The pro-Specter argument was decidedly more nuanced. Sen. Specter has a long record in the US Senate, and it is not a conservative one, so his argument had to have more moving parts. First, Specter actually had won the seat several times and was poised to probably win it again this fall, thus the GOP would be unlikely to lose his seat in November and weaken or even lose its majority. Second, a Toomey candidacy in the general election might energize the conservatives but would probably depress moderates in the party while energizing the Democrats to fight him tooth and nail. That would translate into more Democrats at the polls in November, endangering President Bush's chances of capturing Pennsylvania's electoral votes. Mr. Bush narrowly lost Pennsylvania in 2000 but is currently trailing in several states that he won that year, making Pennsylvania more important than it was four years ago. Specter's argument goes a little futher and projects that without him as a sitting senator, Sen. Santorum's run for re-election in 2006 would be endangered and the state party apartus would suffer. Additionally, without Specter in the Senate, Pennsylvania would lose its clout in Washington. Essentially, Specter's camp believes that their man is the lynch-pin for GOP survival statewide and even in Washington.

I know the argument to this level of detail because it was pitched to this blog by a member of Specter's camp some weeks ago. Their hope was that it would persuade the JYB to make the argument on their behalf to conservatives and get them to vote for one of the most liberal members of the US Senate, Republican or Democrat. They also offered up a set of factoids about Specter--none of which I knew prior--that were meant to persuade that Specter is friendlier to conservatives than his record would indicate.

The factiods are true, and as far as they go they do pull Specter closer to the center if not the right. Specter has worked on behalf of persecuted Christians around the world, and has worked for human rights generally. He has done other things along the same lines that don't generate lots of press but are important indicators of the what the inner senator really believes, and he believes in religious freedom. In the end the rightish factoids made this blog more sympathetic to Specter, but not enough to publicly support him against Toomey. So your humble bloggers sat their contest out.

But President Bush and Sen. Santorum didn't, and for that I can only speculate on their motives, but it would seem they more or less bought Specter's apocalyptic Kool-Aid regarding his own importance in the political universe. To say that Specter has been less than helpful, both to Bush and Santorum, on issues ranging from taxes to abortion to the war, is an understatement. That tells this blog that there was no issues quid pro quo at work--we'll support you if you do X or Y for us--as evidenced by Specter's relative silence on the war in general and as Bush gets hammered by the Democrats specifically. So they must have bought into the thinking that Specter makes the world go round.

It may be true. It's certainly easier for an incumbent of either party to defeat a challenger in the general election, and it's certainly true that long-serving officials tend to have more clout than freshmen. And it's probably true that the more conservative Toomey's presence would have fired up the liberals in November, which might have hurt Bush's re-election. It's true even in a Republican state like Texas that when you have two senators of the same party, one tends to be a true conservative while the other tends to be more "moderate"--John Cornyn (who replaced retired Phil Gramm) and kay Baily Hutchison, respectively. That can only be more true in a swing state like Pennsylvania, which already has one true conservative senator in Santorum.

But it's also true that Bush has helped keep a senator who hasn't been very supportive of conservative causes over the years, a pattern which has continued during Bush's term. In helping Specter Bush may have helped keep the Senate in Republican hands, but he has also probably put Specter in as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a post where the liberal senator can wreak havoc on Bush judicial nominees if he decides to. Specter has been a pretty reliable supporter of anything the NOW nags have wanted by way of judgeships over the years, a history that will put him at odds with the vast majority of judges Bush will nominate in his second term.

So what did President Bush get for his efforts? It's too soon to tell--he may have earned a second term, but he may also have made that term far more difficult. And no matter what, conservatives definitely took a loss due directly to Bush's and Santorum's actions. This blog doesn't expect conservatives to rise up against either man, but we don't expect conservatives to be turning cartwheels for them either. Neither should Specter, Bush and Santorum.

UPDATE: In retrospect, this blog should have told Specter to stuff it. That's apparently what he is telling President Bush, after the latter helped him defeat Toomey. Specter is such a reptile.

Posted by B. Preston at 11:03 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack


On the way into work this morning I heard the most amazing news story on the radio. In Najaf, a new local militia had risen up to fight--against Muqtada al-Sadr's army. This new group had presented Sadr's forces with a threat that they should stand down and stop fighting against the US or face not only the US but this other Iraqi militia. The new militia then actually attacked some of Sadr's forces, defeating them and killing a couple of them.

Since hearing that story on the radio, I've been waiting to see it splash across the net and TV. It is a fairly significant development when one group of Iraqis forms on its own and takes up arms against an insurgent group. It is also a fairly significant development when that new group claims to support the US-led coalition, and it's truly significant that the group backed up its beliefs with action and killed some of Sadr's men. Don't ya think?

Well, I can't find that story anywhere. I've been Googling it for a while and turned up bupkis. Is this just a case of there being no there there when reporters got more of the story, or is this another press blackout along the lines of the Jordan WMD attack plot and that attack's solid connection to both Saddam's WMD caches and al Qaeda?

You make the call. I know which way I'm leaning. The press can find the time to report on everything that makes our task in Iraq appear not only hopeless but actually counterproductive, but apparently can't find the time to report on a interesting and apparently positive development.

UPDATE: Reader Rob A. posted a link to this story in the comments. It's the only story I've seen on the counterinsurgency, and it contains some simmering points:

The group calls itself the Thulfiqar Army, after a twin-bladed sword said to be used by the Shiite martyr Imam Ali, to whom Najaf’s vast central mosque is dedicated.

Residents say leaflets bearing that name have been circulated in the city in the last week, urging Sadr’s al-Mahdi army to leave immediately or face imminent death.

"I haven’t seen the leaflets myself, but I heard about it when I was down there two days ago," said Ahmed Abbas, a carpenter from Najaf who visited Baghdad yesterday.

"It has got some of the Mahdi guys quite worried, I tell you. They are banding together more, when normally you would see them happily walking on the streets alone. I think their commanders have ordered them to do that."

As is the case with most fledgling resistance groups, further details are sketchy. Nobody knows yet who is really behind the group, if the deaths of Mahdi men are its handiwork or, indeed, if it really exists.


Sadr and his militia have gambled that any attempt by US troops to use force in a sacred city such as Najaf would outrage even non-militant Shiites.

US troops began yesterday to expand operations, setting up checkpoints on the road outside their Najaf base, but are still treading carefully, promising to stay away from sacred Shiite sites at the heart of the city.

But while Iraq’s leading Shiite moderate cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has warned the US that the city border was an uncrossable "red line", he is known to share the anger of many Shiites about Sadr’s use of a holy place as a sanctuary.

Local residents, moreover, are deeply angry at how his revolt has robbed them of their livelihoods in recent weeks.

Since Sadr’s forces drove out Spanish troops this month, the tens of thousands of Shiite pilgrims who keep the city’s hoteliers, taxi drivers and restaurateurs in business have become a mere trickle.

During a visit to the city by The Scotsman last week, some residents branded Sadr "the second Saddam", claiming his followers regularly intimidate locals who speak against him.

Yet others point the finger - albeit indirectly - at Ayatollah Sistani, who is understood to be increasingly anxious at the power that Sadr wields with the young and unemployed among Iraq’s 13 million Shiites.

Sistani, who leans our way, lives next door to "the second Saddam's" headquarters, which is across the street from a major mosque in the city of Najaf. That triad of co-locations is a big reason we haven't sent the Marines or missiles in to kill Sadr--we might either destroy a significant shrine or kill one of our allies by mistake. But the co-locations also provide opportunity and motive for Sistani to form some kind of anti-Sadr uprising to try and drive him out of Najaf. It's a good bet he's behind this shadowy militia that's killing Sadr's terrorists. Sistani operated an anti-Saddam militia during the Butcher of Baghdad's day.

This story could get very, very interesting--if the press covers it.

Posted by B. Preston at 10:23 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

April 27, 2004


For those who saw Chris Matthews' softball interview of John Kerry tonight, you were probably wondering why Kerry gave such a nuanced answer about how WMD might be found in Iraq soon, just not in the amount and place Bush said they would be. Well it turns out they've already been found, and the liberal "Bush lied about WMD" lie is rapidly falling apart. Kerry is flip-flopping back to sanity early before the WMD dam breaks in the mainstream and washes him away. Respected investigative reporter Kenneth Timmerman wrote the article that has the Kerry campaign scrambling for higher ground:

New evidence out of Iraq suggests that the U.S. effort to track down Saddam Hussein's missing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is having better success than is being reported. Key assertions by the intelligence community that were widely judged in the media and by critics of President George W. Bush as having been false are turning out to have been true after all. But this stunning news has received little attention from the major media, and the president's critics continue to insist that "no weapons" have been found.

In virtually every case - chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles - the United States has found the weapons and the programs that the Iraqi dictator successfully concealed for 12 years from U.N. weapons inspectors.

Who will tell the people? Probably the Pentagon in September.

UPDATE: Captain Ed saw the same thing and deconstructs Kerry's WMD buffoonery.

Lab Tests Could Link Saddam's Missing WMDs to Jordan Plot

Israeli Lt. Gen. stands by pre-war intel: Iraq had chemical weapons.

Sudan Orders Syrian [Iraqi?] WMD Removed ASAP

State Dept waging WMD report war with the White House

The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) has been at the forefront challenging the administration’s claims to have had legitimate intelligence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. INR is believed to be the source of leaks intended to counter administration claims.
Senior Bush officials have seen so many obvious INR leaks published in the New York Times, it has becoming a running joke that some INR analysts must have Times reporters on their speed dials.

Some INR bureaucrats in this supposedly objective “intelligence organization” make no bones about their dislike for the Bush White House, and have posted demeaning cartoons about the president in their offices.

INR is a media favorite among the agencies that complete the U.S. intelligence community.

As one official put it: “[INR] never sees any evil and objected to all WMD findings against Iraq. It also objected to WMD findings against Iran, Cuba and North Korea.”

INR reflects the perennial liberalism of the State Department and its close ties with the Democratic Party.

INR is viewed as so clearly biased that even liberal experts are reluctant to cite it.

UPDATE: One of the terrorists arrested in connection with the Jordan chem-attack plot has confessed--and his confession makes the Iraq-WMD-al Qaeda connection a slam-dunk:

In a confession broadcast on Jordanian television, the unnamed WMD conspirator revealed: "In Iraq, I started training in explosives and poisons. I gave my complete obedience to [Abu Musab al] Zarqawi," the al-Qaida WMD specialist whose base of operations was in Iraq.

Excerpts from the WMD conspirator's confession broadcast by ABC's "Nightline" late Monday show that the WMD plot was planned and trained for in Iraq more than a year before the U.S. invasion, with the terror suspect admitting, "After the fall of Afghanistan, I met Zarqawi again in Iraq."

There you have it--the WMDs were real, and Iraq was working with al Qaeda prior to the invasion.

Posted by Chris Regan at 07:28 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack


Finally we begin to see the true colors of pagan abortion lovers:

Sunday's "March for Women's Lives" made maximum usage of euphemism, invoking "choice" whenever marchers meant killing. They, for example, used placards to convey the lament that Barbara Bush hadn't killed her son in the womb. "If Only Barbara Bush Had Choice," read one sign. "Barbara Chose Poorly," read another. Marchers were also disappointed that the Pope's mother hadn't killed him in the womb. "The Pope's Mother Had No Choice," said a sign.

...The marchers know that God blesses the abortion of unborn children because God is a woman. "I asked God. She's pro-choice," was a popular sign. And they are now theological enough to place Satan on the same ticket as George Bush -- the "Bush/Satan" administration.

Separation-of-church-state advocate Barry Lynn, whom the media insist on calling a "reverend" but is obviously a fraud, also described the protest as a "hallowed space." But though they wanted to turn God into an abortion activist and enlist the support of as many churches and religions as possible -- "Episcopalians for Choice," "This Is What a Jewish Feminist Looks Like" were signs seen in the crowd -- the marchers could not resist certain anti-religious chants. "Tax the church, tax the church" followed the attacks of Kissling and others on the Pope and the Catholic Church.

Considering the radical left's stated views on George Bush being an evil "terrorist," these abortion proponents see a potential Osama bin Laden hiding in every womb and are encouraging mothers to pre-emptively take him out limb-by-limb -- while their strange god cheers them on against the tiny in utero-terrorists.

This actually isn't a new philosophy though. Abortionists have long embraced abortion as the extermination of future undesirable adults. In fact, Planned Parenthood began with this philosophy and has only partially tried to hide it as the group (and abortion) moved into the mainstream. The group has now, for the first time in history, endorsed a candidate for President who shares their beliefs.

"...[John] Kerry’s landmark endorsement is the first time the group has ever endorsed a candidate for president, according to the American Press--and it could be the last when mainstream Americans discover what the Planned Parenthood Federation stands for.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood had this to say about blacks, immigrants and indigents: "…human weeds, ‘reckless breeders’, `spawning…human beings who should never have been born.’ (Pivot of Civilization).

On the extermination of blacks: "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said. "If it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." (Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon).

Now if John Kerry doesn't share those beliefs, then I would hope he might say something and decline the endorsement. After all, would he accept an endorsement from a mainstream "New Improved KKK" knowing how the blogosphere would react? Maybe he would if they were non-violent, but what if they were killing off thousands of poor black and hispanic babies every day? Well it turns out Kerry is also for using abortion as population control:

Kerry has gone what in better days would have been universally held to be one bridge too far. In a speech last year to the NARAL Pro-Choice America Dinner, he gave an intellectually suicidal summary of his views.

He began by saying that "there is no overturning of Roe v. Wade." He went on: "There is no outlawing of a procedure necessary to save a woman's life or health." That statement of course begs the question on which the entire Congress and the state legislatures and the Supreme Court have been stalled for years, namely, Is the invocation of "health," if made by the woman alone, conclusive in authorizing abortion? If so, Roe v. Wade, which did not authorize willful third-trimester abortions, stands to be revised as the Roe-Wade-Kerry decision.

Kerry continued: "There [shall be] no more cutbacks on population control efforts around the world." This endorses abortion Chinese-style. Too many people? Too few abortions.

But the eye-popper was still to come: "We need to honestly and confidently and candidly take this issue out to the country and we need to speak up and be proud of what we stand for."

The women who support John Kerry just did that. The infamous racist Margaret Sanger is no doubt looking up and smiling at their candidate of choice.

UPDATE: For more info on the background of America's mostly leftist eugenicists, check out this blog post where we find out Planned Parenthood's Margaret Sanger was "warmly praised by Hitler for her energetic championship of eugenics."

There's also a great new book out on the subject: War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race

In this meticulously researched and powerfully narrated book, Black shows how the idea that an Aryan master race must perfect the human species by wiping out "inferior" peoples was first developed and articulated by the eugenics movement in the United States.

Eugenics is America's dirty little secret. I certainly never learned in high-school history that thousands of America's ignorant hill folk, confused immigrants, impoverished blacks, epileptics, alcoholics, and petty criminals were identified as feebleminded on the basis of bogus science. They were forbidden to marry and were herded into institutions, where they were cruelly mistreated and forcibly sterilized.

The promoters of this frankly racist pseudoscientific theory were the elite of American business, politics, and academia. Corporate foundations pumped millions of dollars into "eugenic research." Educated people everywhere subscribed enthusiastically to its notions. . . .

THAT EUGENIC ideas were inimical to both democracy and Christianity was obvious to pope Pius XI, who denounced the movement in a 1930 encyclical, and to the British labor movement.

Opposition grew in the United States, led by organized groups of immigrants and the Hearst newspaper chain. American eugenicists, who had become interested in the possibilities of the "lethal chamber" used to kill stray dogs, found their progress blunted. But by then the movement had spread worldwide, and [zoologist Charles] Davenport's contacts in Germany, whose experiments were generously funded by Rockefeller and Carnegie "even as Americans stood in bread lines," were about to see all restrictions on their work lifted by the man who had written eugenicists fan mail from his jail cell: Hitler.

Within a year, Hitler had put their whole program into practice with a cruel rigor that led a Virginia eugenicist to declare that "Germany is beating us at our own game."

The return of some elitist liberals in America, like Princeton professor Peter Singer, to embracing partial-birth abortion, post-birth infanticide, euthanasia and modern eugenics is no surprise. Human nature is to forget the past and repeat history once the people who were alive the last time have passed on. The pendulum is not done swinging back yet. It doesn't help that the elitist American media portrays the danger of another Hitler coming from the Christian right. The truth is that Hitler and his inner circle were known to be occultist/pagan homosexual Socialists that hijacked Christian symbolism for the political power to advance the cause of leftist eugenics.

Posted by Chris Regan at 01:45 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack


If this email I and several other bloggers recently received is any indication, blogging has become part of the American cultural landscape:

To Whom It May Concern:

The United States Library of Congress builds and preserves a universal
collection of knowledge for Congress and the American people. The Library's
traditional functions, acquiring, cataloging, preserving and serving collections
of historical importance to foster education and scholarship, extend to digital
materials, including Web sites. The Library selected your site for collection,
inclusion and preservation in the historic collection of Election 2002 Internet
materials. The Library attempted to contact your Web site during the collection
period of July 1 to December 1, 2002, but was not able to verify whether you
received your notice. The Library wishes to make the Election 2002 collection of
archived Web sites available to offsite researchers by hosting the collection on
the Library's public access Web site. The Library hopes that you share our
vision of preserving the historical record of the Election 2002 presence on the
Web and that you will agree to include your archived site among the collection that will be available to researchers from
across the world.

URL collected between July 1 and December 1, 2002


If you agree to permit the Library to provide offsite access to your materials
through the Library's Web site, please click on the following link:

I don't recall ever getting that earlier notice. Maybe my perennial Hotmail bouncing problem slapped it back at them. At the end of this notice there was a link to click that sent me to a form granting or denying permission for the Library of Congress to house some of my scrawls from the old JYB site on Blogspot. I granted permission, so I suppose before long researchers will be able to log on to the LoC web database and pull up my old blog posts. It may also mean that what we write this year about this election will end up in the LoC's gigantic memory banks.

The blogging that men do lives after them...

Posted by B. Preston at 10:03 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack


What to do with all those statues of Saddam from the old, tyrant-trodden Iraq? Melt them down and make something better out of them:

FORWARD OPERATING BASE, Tikrit, Iraq – When he was forced to fashion statues of Saddam Hussein on horseback, the Iraqi sculptor had no idea that someday he would melt them down to create a memorial for American soldiers.

The two original statues, which adorned a gate at the palace complex where 4th ID’s headquarters group is located were removed with explosives in early July, said 1st Sgt. Mark Anderson, the Headquarters and Headquarters Company first sergeant and Roseland, La. native. Anderson has monitored the memorial project’s progress since the end of July.

The toppled statues were cut up into pieces by members of the 555th Engineer Group and spirited quietly to the artist, Kalat, who reshaped the chunks of bronze into a likeness of an American soldier being comforted by a small girl as he mourns a fallen comrade.


The artist, who fears retaliation from former regime loyalists for his work with the Coalition, spent several months sculpting and casting the statue. Though he created the original statues of Saddam along with another artist, he created the 4th ID memorial through his own design, said Anderson.

The sculpture is based on a scene many in Iraq have witnessed in one form or another. A soldier kneels before a memorial of boots, rifle and helmet – his forehead resting in the hollow of his hand. Behind and to his right stands a small Iraqi girl with her hand reaching out to touch his shoulder.

The little girl portrays, in her eyes and presence, a sympathy mixed with gratitude. She was added to remind people of why the sacrifice was made.

An Iraqi sculptor, now free, destroys images of Saddam and turns them into a monument to those who made him free.

The statue will eventually make its way back to Ft. Hood, Texas to be placed in a museum to 4th ID members killed in Iraq.

(thanks to MR)

Posted by B. Preston at 09:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


My review of Thomas Barnett's The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century is up over at National Review Online.

Posted by B. Preston at 08:27 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

April 26, 2004


I wish I knew what to make of this bit from Hillary! Clinton:

The lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq contradicts years of intelligence indicating Saddam had such weapons, which also was the conclusion of officials in the Clinton administration.

"The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration," [Clinton] said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.

"But I think that in the case of the [Bush] administration, they really believed it. They really thought they were right, but they didn't let enough sunlight into their thinking process to really have the kind of debate that needs to take place when a serious decision occurs like that." (emphasis mine)

The intel upon which the WMD threat assessment was based was mostly developed during the Clinton years. Some of that intel was developed by other countries and by the UN's weapons inspection teams, some of it came from very credible dissidents such as Hussein Kamel (Saddam's son-in-law whose stories all checked out and who was later so dissappointed by the reaction he got from the Clinton admin that he ended up getting lured back to Iraq, and to his death), but much of that intel was developed by agencies that reported to Clinton. The CIA, for starters.

So...what does Hillary mean with that "they really believed it" crack? In 1998, based on intel that was nearly identical to that used in 2002 and 2003 by the Bush admin to form part of the justification for war, the Clinton admin went on the warpath and tried to get the American people to support a large-scale engagement with Saddam. Hillary's little gaffe (if you take the Kinsley definition of a gaffe, which is when a politician accidentally tells the truth) would seem to suggest that the Bush administration should not have believed the WMD intel, most of which was developed during the Clinton years. Why would that be? Why shouldn't President Bush and his team believe in intel developed by President Clinton and his team, especially when many members of the team (George Tenet, Richard Clarke, etc) were in fact the same people? Why should the Bush team even doubt the piles of evidence developed during the Clinton years, when that very evidence had come to form a kind of article of faith regarding Saddam's undying perfidy? The consensus that Saddam was pursuing WMDs was worldwide, after all--and based mostly on US-developed intel. In the words of George Tenet, that Saddam had WMDs was a "slam dunk."

Maybe Hillary is just saying something kind of dumb off the cuff. Maybe she's being too nuanced by half, and comes off not making a great deal of sense. Or maybe not.

Maybe some bad WMD intel was developed to persuade the American people to want to topple Saddam, but it didn't work as intended when intended. We never did go to war in Iraq in 1998, even though removing Saddam became official US policy in that very year. The American people never really got on board with the Clinton-led 1998 effort, sensing that the Clinton team wasn't really serious about the whole thing.

Could it be that all of the "wag the dog" rumors--rumors that made the rather obvious connection between bombing a Sudanese pill factory and grand jury testimony occurring on the same day--were true? Could it be that somewhere inside the bowels of the Clinton administration the order went out to "discover" evidence that Saddam was still hotly pursuing WMDs, and that because of this America must go to war at the very moment that Clinton found himself caught in the Monica vortex? Could it be that Hillary has inadvertently exposed the big lie--the one concocted to save her husband's sorry skin by taking America to war?

Flip actors here a bit, and put Bush in Clinton's place to any degree and you know the left would be all over him like stink on a monkey. No contradicting fact would dissuade them, just as no mountain of contradictory facts dissuades them now. But if we are to take Hillary's gaffe at face value, someone may have tried to lie America into war, but that someone isn't George W. Bush.

So when will we hear the lefty chorus rise to its feet as one and shout--"Clinton LIED!!! Thousands DIED!!!"


(thanks to Chris)

Posted by B. Preston at 09:55 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


Ion Mihai Pacepa was Romania's espionage chief in the 1970s. In that position he participated in numerous agitprop campaigns against the West generally and the US specifically, and worked closely with the KGB to develop various lies and front groups aimed at undermining the West before defecting to the US in 1978. FrontPage interviewed Pacepa about the KGB and its role in fostering international terrrorism. Suffice it to say that Pacepa doesn't see today's terrorists the way Michael Moore sees today's terrorists:

Moore, in his own sickening words:

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.

That's the same Michael Moore who was proudly embraced by Gen. Wesley Clark during the campaign, and whom the Democrats still embrace. Moore is, as he has long been, cheering for America's enemies. He's a dispicable creature along the lines of Gollum, just a few hundred pounds heavier and shorter on charm. But the lefties just love him. I'm sure his latest agitprop-umentary will win another Oscar in spite of the fact that it's total work of fiction.

According to Pacepa, today's Middle Eastern terrorists have deep roots in Moscow:

FP: Tell us about the PLO and its connection to the Soviet regime.

Pacepa: The PLO was dreamt up by the KGB, which had a penchant for “liberation” organizations. There was the National Liberation Army of Bolivia, created by the KGB in 1964 with help from Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Then there was the National Liberation Army of Colombia, created by the KGB in 1965 with help from Fidel Castro, which was soon deeply involved in kidnappings, hijackings, bombings and guerrilla warfare. In later years the KGB also created the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which carried out numerous bombing attacks on the “Palestinian territories” occupied by Israel, and the “Secret Army for Liberation of Armenia,” created by the KGB in 1975, which organized numerous bombing attacks against US airline offices in Western Europe.

In 1964 the first PLO Council, consisting of 422 Palestinian representatives handpicked by the KGB, approved the Palestinian National Charter—a document that had been drafted in Moscow. The Palestinian National Covenant and the Palestinian Constitution were also born in Moscow, with the help of Ahmed Shuqairy, a KGB influence agent who became the first PLO chairman. (During the Six-Day War he escaped from Jerusalem disguised as a woman, thereafter becoming such a symbol within the bloc intelligence community that one of its later influence operations—aimed at making the West consider Arafat a moderate—was given the codename “Shuqairy.”) This new PLO was headed by a Soviet-style Executive Committee made up of 15 members who, like their comrades in Moscow, also headed departments. As in Moscow—and Bucharest—the chairman of the Executive Committee became the general commander of the armed forces as well. The new PLO also had a General Assembly, which was the Soviet-inspired name given to all East European parliaments after World War II.

Based on another “socialist division of labor,” the Romanian espionage service (DIE) was responsible for providing the PLO with logistical support. Except for the arms, which were supplied by the KGB and the East German Stasi, everything else came from Bucharest. Even the PLO uniforms and the PLO stationery were manufactured in Romania free of charge, as a “comradely help.” During those years, two Romanian cargo planes filled with goodies for the PLO landed in Beirut every week, and were unloaded by Arafat’s men.

FP: You have discussed your personal knowledge of how Arafat was created and cultivated by the KGB and how the Soviets actually designed him to be the future leader of the PLO. Illuminate this picture for us please.

Pacepa: “Tovarishch Mohammed Abd al-Rahman Abd al-Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini, nom de guerre Abu Ammar,” was built into a Palestinian leader by the KGB in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli War. In that war Israel humiliated two of the Soviet Union’s most important allies in the Arab world of that time, Egypt and Syria, and the Kremlin thought that Arafat could help repair the Soviet prestige. Arafat had begun his political career as leader of the Palestinian terrorist organization al-Fatah, whose fedayeen were being secretly trained in the Soviet Union. In 1969, the KGB managed to catapult him up as chairman of the PLO executive committee. Egyptian ruler Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was also a Soviet puppet, publicly proposed the appointment.

Soon after that, the KGB tasked Arafat to declare war on American “imperial-Zionism” during the first summit of the Black International, an organization that was also financed by the KGB. Arafat claimed to have coined the word “imperial-Zionism,” but in fact Moscow had invented this battle cry many years earlier, combining the traditionally Russian anti-Semitism with the new Marxist anti-Americanism.

It seems Mikey got one thing right. Today's terrorists do represent a revolution all right. Just not any sort of revolution that Americans have anything in common with. Arafat and his ilk in Iraq are not "Minutemen" or any other version of liberty-loving patriot. They're just scum. They're the last last surviving spawn of the Marxist revolution that once sought to subjugate the West and enslave the world.

And Michael Moore--and by extension his fawning supporters--are cheering them on. They're not anti-war. They're just on the other side.

Posted by B. Preston at 04:47 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


Do you want to help America's enemies defeat us? Form an anti-war movement:

Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said,

"We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

That's according to Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army. His comments echo A Vietcong Memoir by Truong Nhu Tang, a Communist activist, urban organizer and North Vietnam cabinet member during the war. They also fit well with statements and writings of General Giap, Hanoi's Chief of Staff. Giap would later thank anti-war movements in the US, such as John Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, for making the Communist victory possible.

To review the results of that anti-war movement's efforts, the US and our South Vietnamese allies lost the war. South Vietnam was overrun and hundreds of thousands of innocents were either slaughtered or put into "re-education" camps. Thousands fled to neighboring states or even made their way however they could to the US. The US sustained a humiliating defeat which echoes in every war we have fought ever since. US troops found themselves smeared by one of their own as "murderers," "torturers," and "baby killers," as well as "rapists" and "criminals." That one of their own was none other than Navy Lt. John Forbes Kerry. He mainstreamed the whole "baby killers" lie and made it believable to a nation that until then largely respected its soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. Kerry's lie took the better part of a generation--until the first Gulf War, which he voted against--to wear off.

Based on this history I'll reiterate a statement I've made before. America is at war now and has been since 9-11. Whether you agree with our military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq or not, to continue to agitate against them is to invite the same sort of defeat we suffered in Vietnam, but with potentially far greater consequences for Americans at home. The time and place for responsible people to engage in anti-war activities was before we engaged the enemy on the battlefield. Now that we are in battle, indeed have been in battle since late 2001 in Afghanistan and since March-April 2003, the time for street marches and other continued anti-war activism is past. To continue in such activities--whether you're a street marcher or just an agitator trying to break war morale on a blog--is to help the terrorists. It really is that simple, as our sad history with Vietnam shows clearly.

MORE: Today's terrorists have evidently studied Hanoi's playbook:

DUBAI (Reuters) - A group holding three Italians hostage in Iraq has threatened to kill them in five days unless Italians take to the street to publicly denounce their country's involvement in the U.S.-led occupation.


"We tell you, we will show good faith and free them...if you sympathise with our cause, show solidarity with us and publicly reject the policy of your prime minister by staging a big demonstration in your capital to protest against the war and call on your government to withdraw from our country," Arabiya quoted a statement it said was from the kidnappers as saying.

"We grant you five days, after which we will kill them without any hesitation or any other warning," added the statement, signed by a group calling itself the Green Brigade.

In other words, be a good anti-war lefty of the International ANSWER variety--take to the streets, denounce your government's right of self-defense, throw in a few dozen "Down with imperialism!" chants, burn George W. Bush in effigy, etc--and we'll let your boys walk.

The terrorists are trying to generate street protests in the West to put pressure on allied governments, just like the Communists did to us in Vietnam. Should these protests materialize, the terrorists will then use them to separate the allied governments' leadership from their own bases of support, weakening them to the point that withdrawal is their only viable political option. Just like Vietnam.

Will Western lefties fall for it? Probably. Maybe not in this narrow case of demands, but in general, every time a lefty marches or agitates against a war that has been underway for more than a year, that lefty falls for the terrorists and their propaganda and makes our task of winning more difficult. And you can pretty much always count on lefties to fall for anything that makes them feel superior to or just different from their countrymen.

Italy will be a serious test-case for guaging how effective the terrorists and their allies are at getting the protest word out. If it works in Italy, expect more hostage-taking on a grander scale--and more murder and mayhem in Iraq.

But--the terrorists might think twice before picking on Japan again:

Two days before her daughter was freed Thursday night by her captors in Iraq, 65-year-old Kyoko Takato was apologizing to the public, using words more befitting of the parent of a criminal.

Civilian hostages Nahoko Takato, 34, a volunteer aid worker; Soichiro Koriyama, a 32-year-old freelance photojournalist; and 18-year-old Noriaki Imai, a recent high school graduate, were released Thursday night in Baghdad by gunmen holding them hostage. Their captors had threatened to burn the trio to death unless Japan pulled its Self-Defense Forces troops out of Iraq.

Japan refused to cave in to the gunmen, and did not budge when relatives of the trio came to Tokyo and demanded an SDF pullout for the sake of their loved ones' lives. The trio were later freed unharmed.

But what may ordinarily have been a happy ending may instead not be the end of the suffering for the three and their families.

While the three were in captivity, they and their kin drew sharp public criticism in Japan, having put themselves in harm's way after being warned to steer clear of Iraq. They were castigated for causing trouble and a fair amount of grief for the government.

Immediately after it was learned that the trio had been taken hostage, politicians, top bureaucrats and the media openly accused them of risking not only their own lives but also of jeopardizing the government's activities in Iraq by entering the strife-torn country despite repeated orders by the Foreign Ministry to keep out.

Following that, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party--the party that sent Japanese troops into Iraq despite some fairly widespread public opposition--won more seats in the Diet. Japanese citizens are very much ambivalent about the operation in Iraq, but appear to be in no mood to give in to terrorists. Japan is not Spain.

Posted by B. Preston at 12:39 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


Hm. I see John Kerry tried out a new defense for his did-he-throw-medals-or-ribbons this morning on GMA:

i expressed there was great sense of wrench being the whole thing. many of us -- we had a long argument the night before, charlie. it is a matter of record. as to how we were going to do it. and the vote was taken. i was not in favor of throwing them over the fence. i thought we ought to lay them on a table and put them in front of people in a way that, you know, wouldn't be as challenging to many americans. other veterans felt otherwise. they took a vote. the vote was made, they voted to throw. i threw my ribbons.

So...Senator Kerry, are you saying you voting against throwing the medals before actually throwing the medals?

Kind of like voting for something, before voting against it?

And isn't it interesting how crystal Kerry's memory is of the medal-tossing debate, when he's still foggy about debating a plot to kill US Senators?

Posted by B. Preston at 11:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 25, 2004


John Kerry is going to regret bringing back Vietnam as a campaign issue:


In an interview published Friday in the LOS ANGELES TIMES, Dem presidential hopeful John Kerry claimed he "never ever implied" that he threw his own medals during a Hill protest in 1971 to appear as an antiwar hero.

But a new shock video shows John Kerry -- in his own voice -- saying he did!

ABC's GOOD MORNING AMERICA is set to rock the political world Monday morning...

I couldn't help but notice that this "caught on tape" story is very similar to Bill Clinton's:

During his private interview with the 9/11 Commission on Thursday, ex-President Bill Clinton denied that he told a New York business group in 2002 that he turned down an offer from Sudan for Osama bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., according to 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey.

"Bill Clinton said yesterday that that was a misquote," Kerrey told WDAY Fargo, N.D., radio host Scott Hennen, in an interview set for broadcast on Monday.

A transcript of the exchange between Hennen and Kerrey was read on the air by national radio host Sean Hannity late Friday. It shows that the 9/11 Commission was unaware that Clinton's bombshell admission that he spurned the bin Laden offer had been recorded by NewsMax.

After Kerrey said Clinton had denied the quote, Hennen said: "But wait a minute - I heard it in his own voice. I've heard him say it. I have the tape of him saying just that."

"Really?" said a perplexed Kerrey. "Well, then - ship it to me, because Clinton said yesterday [in private 9/11 testimony] that he didn't have a recollection of that."

I'm betting that Kerry uses the same excuse now after being caught lying. He'll say he has no recollection (of being tape-recorded when he told the unguarded truth). Kerry will suffer, but Clinton gets a pass. Bill Clinton lying behind closed doors is like a tree falling in the forest. We had a former President caught in a bald-faced lie to the 9/11 Commission and nobody cares. Pathological liars do have a way of just wearing you out. Kerry may yet fall into that category.

UPDATE: This would be funny if it wasn't so sad:

“President Clinton would clearly help the United States regain the respect of our allies across the world.” — Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter, on the former president's name being bandied about as a secretary of state in a Kerry administration.

MORE: Kerry was really flip-flopping all over the deck on this one:

Many veterans were seen throwing their medals and ribbons over the fence in front of the U.S. Capitol. At the time, The Boston Globe and other newspapers reported that Kerry was among these veterans.

"In a real sense, this administration forced us to return our medals because beyond the perversion of the war, these leaders themselves denied us the integrity those symbols supposedly gave our lives," Kerry said the following day.

But in 1984, when he first ran for the U.S. Senate, Kerry revealed he still had his medals. According to a Boston Globe report on April 15, 1984, union officials had expressed uneasiness with Kerry's candidacy because he had thrown his medals away. Kerry acknowledged the medals he threw away were, in fact, another soldier's medals. He reportedly invited a union official home to personally inspect his Silver Star, Bronze Star and three purple hearts, awarded for his combat duty as a Navy lieutenant.

In the 1971 Viewpoints interview, he made no mention of the ribbons or the medals belonging to another veteran.

And in 1988, Kerry again clarified his statement by saying he threw out ribbons he had been awarded for three combat wounds, but not his medals. "I was proud of my personal service and remain so," he told the National Journal.

Eight years later in 1996, Kerry said while he did throw out his ribbons, he didn't throw out his own medals because he "didn't have time to go home [to New York] and get them," he told The Boston Globe.

Posted by Chris Regan at 07:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack