October 02, 2004


What would the media do if President Bush made a statement-of-fact during the debates that turned out be flatly untrue, and probably just made up out of thin air to embarass John Kerry?

The MSM would first call Bush a liar and then they would Quayle him. They would insist the gaffe proves Bush is a card or two short of a full deck, that after four years in office he still lacks gravitas, that he's an idiot savant without the savant. Kerry supporters would join in with choruses on the stupidity (or dishonesty) of Smirky McChimp, Resident of the United States. They would sing louder, higher and even more irritatingly than the ewoks at the end of Jedi.

Tell me I'm wrong about that. Go ahead. I'll wait.

On the other (left) hand, what would the MSM do if John Kerry said something during the debates that turned out to be flatly untrue, and probably just made up to make Bush look bad? It would remain silent, with only a trickle out here or there around the edges.

That's the situation we have before us now. During the first debate, Kerry chided the President's Homeland Security policies, by stating that they're so ineffective and underfunded that New York City had to close off the subways during the GOP convention in August.

The problem with that statement is that it's just flatly not true.

October 1, 2004 -- Sen. John Kerry was on a wrong track in last night's presidential debate — as any New York straphanger knows.

In an early exchange about homeland security, Kerry got it wrong when he claimed President Bush's cuts in funding for infrastructure protection was "why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there."

The only problem is that no subway service beneath Madison Square Garden was suspended during the convention, even as buses were diverted and gridlock ruled the streets.

"We did not stop any trains," said Transit Authority spokesman Paul Fleuranges. "I will not guess or opine what he was talking about."

John Kerry is either badly mistaken, the victim of poor prep work by his staff, or he was just making stuff up on the fly. Either way he tried to make a major point about a serious policy by telling a fib. Right to your face, ladies and gentlemen.

The MSM will look the other way. You shouldn't.

(thanks to BWB)

Posted by B. Preston at 09:32 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

October 01, 2004


InstaPundit's assignment desk: Check out the Bush interview on O'Reilly and offer a thought or two about it.

I've watched the first two segments, and I must say it's a solid performance. I hate using that word--performance--but I guess that's what it is. He's under the big lights, sitting across from Bill the blowhard, cameras rolling--it's a performance.

The president gives solid answers to some very tough and lively questioning, seems relaxed, offers up perfectly understandable and reasonable defenses of his policies and decisions, and comes off quite well. I thought his defense of the USS Lincoln landing was perfect, and his explanation of the infamous 7 minutes makes sense. Here's a transcript of that:

O’REILLY: Let’s clear this up once and for all. What were you thinking?

BUSH: I was thinking America was under attack, I was collecting my thoughts, and I wasn’t about to panic a bunch of kids. And the program was winding down, I waited for the end of the program, I excused myself and I went to action. And what the American people will judge me on is whether or not I handled that crisis, in a way that lets them know that, that I’ll lead in this war on terror, that's what they need to look at, and I think they are looking at it that way.

Unreasonable, to make sure not to start a panic while the Secret Service swung into action to get him onto Air Force One as quickly as possible, even if it took seven whole minutes? I don't think so. Michael Moore does. You make the call--BUT--note that Sen. Kerry took more than 40 minutes before the smoke cleared in his mind. Be careful, liberals, which way you let the wind blow you on this one.

In general, it's a very solid interview, much better in fact than the one Kerry gave to Diane Sawyer recently. Bush is plain-spoken but takes a stand and makes sense. Kerry speaks well but says nothing.

I think the most remarkable thing about the Bush interview, though, is how well O'Reilly comes off. To be honest, I haven't watched him in a long, long time. His schtick wore thin on me a while back, but here with the president he seems funny and interesting. Maybe it's just because I haven't seen him in a while, but he seemed like a decent if blustery guy.

Anyway, I challenge liberals to watch the interview and then compare it to any Kerry appearance of recent vintage. Bush looks and sounds better, period. More forthright, more thoughtful, and more presidential.

Posted by B. Preston at 09:19 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack


Remember the Simonas, the two Italian aid workers captured and recently released by terrorists in Iraq? One of them says she supports the insurgency:

An Italian aid worker in Iraq held captive and subsequently freed has said guerrillas there were right to fight US-led forces and their Iraqi "puppet government".

Channeling Joe Lockhart, I guess.

In comments that were bound to annoy Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government, Simona Torretta also called on Rome to withdraw the troops it sent to Iraq to support its US ally.

"I said it before the kidnapping and I repeat it today," she told Corriere della Sera newspaper in an interview published on Friday.

"You have to distinguish between terrorism and resistance. The guerrilla war is justified, but I am against the kidnapping of civilians."

That's a fine, nuanced and fashionably left position to take, but utterly false on the facts--there is no difference between the "resistance" and terrorism. It's all one big hodge-podge of enemies fighting Iraq's free future by killing children and other innocents.

Describing the administration of Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi as "a puppet government in the hands of the Americans", Torretta said elections planned for January would have no legitimacy: "During my days in detention ... I came to the conclusion it will take decades to put Iraq back on its feet."

"During my days in detention..." she wasn't thinking about what it would feel like to have cold steel cut her throat on its way to separating her head from her body. She wasn't thinking about what it would mean for her family to see the video of her own grotesque execution broadcast on the internet. She wasn't thinking about someone finding her body and having to search for her head in a separate location, or about the flies buzzing around the stump of her neck.

She was thinking about politics. About the illegitimate elected government that will soon be the permanent replacement for the legitimate rule of Saddam Hussein. She was thinking about those evil Americans.

This kidnapping was staged. She was a false hostage, and was never in danger.

Beheadings make no strategic difference on the battlefield. The death of one civilian, or dozens of them, at the hands of terrorists does nothing to stop the US Marines. But images of civilians in danger, or being beheaded, can make a difference where it matters--the minds on the homefront. That is the battlefield the beheaders seek to win, knowing that a victory there very well could stop the US Marines. And our dear Simona was their willing post-modern Howitzer.

Aid workers collaborating with butchers in war-torn Iraq. The post-modern war is enlisting a new breed of foot soldier, and Simona is one of them. The marriage of the left with Islamic jihad is complete. Is it possible dear Simona turned up in Tehran, among the Euro left contingent at the Ten Days of Dawn conference, to advise the jihadis on their media strategies? I think it is.

There are currently about 40 hostages being held by various terrorist fronts in Iraq. How many of them are hostages, and how many of them are "hostages?"

Posted by B. Preston at 03:16 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


John Kerry misunderstands the role of the President in war. LT Smash explains why, with a blow-by-blow account of the infamously "outsourced" battle of Tora Bora.

That battle, incidentally, still marks the last verified whereabouts of a living, breathing Osama bin Laden.

(via InstaPundit)

Posted by B. Preston at 02:48 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


After the debate, the DNC hit Bush with a montage of his off-camera expressions.

The RNC hit back with a substantive video highlighting 10 flip-flops Kerry committed during the debate.

Appearance vs substance. That's the election in a nutshell.

Posted by B. Preston at 02:16 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack


On the heels of the presidential debate, we hear from al Qaeda. But not from Osama bin Laden. Curious, no? Why would an egomaniac like bin Laden let his #2 take the limelight? Because he's either dead or grievously injured is my bet.

So it's up to Zawahiri to rally the faithful. This blog suspects the faithful won't find the message encouraging:

The speaker on the latest tape calls on Muslims "not to wait any longer, otherwise, we will be devoured, one country after the other," according to Al-Jazeera.

"The youth must not wait for anyone and must begin resisting from now and learn a lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan and Chechnya."

Translation: Kids, you're on your own. We're being hunted down like animals and will probably get our 72 virgins real soon, so why don't you just run along and find some way to take the heat off of us. We're out of ideas, so just wing it, k?

As for the crack about being "devoured, one country after another," it indicates Zawahiri can read a map.

Posted by B. Preston at 01:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


A hair-raising story from McAllen, TX:

McALLEN — Information provided by a high-ranking al-Qaida operative led authorities to almost a dozen undocumented aliens who worked for the largest supplier of ready-toeat meals for the military, officials said.

U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, Michael Shelby, said Thursday an al-Qaida member told U.S. military personnel about the Wornick Co., located here.

"Immediately after the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban in 2002, U.S. forces on the ground received specific information that links McAllen, Texas, by name and the Wornick facility by name to information within al-Qaida’s possession," Shelby said.

Wornick holds a $67 million contract with the Department of Defense to produce packaged meals for the military.

Two points here--first, al Qaeda was interested in a plant that makes MREs, the pre-packaged food our troops in combat rely on. Second, McAllen is just this side of Mexico. The blue line in this map is the Rio Grande; everything below it is Mexican territory.

The information kicked off a review of all staff at Wornick and eventually led the FBI to Remedy Intelligent Staffing in McAllen, which referred a number of employees to the company. Officials also wanted to know why al-Qaida would be interested in the Wornick Co.

"There had to be an investigation into the possibility that al-Qaida had the intention of infiltrating the Wornick Company for the purposes of contaminating — possibly — the MREs produced by the company," Shelby stated.

And while no tainted military meals have been found, Shelby said 10 temporary employees at Remedy were arrested and convicted in July 2004 on charges of using Social Security numbers that didn’t belong to them.


The 10 Remedy employees found working at Wornick pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of fraud and were sentenced to jail time ranging from one day to 173 days.

Two U.S. citizens, one Canadian and seven Mexican nationals were in the group. Those in the country illegally faced deportation upon the completion of jail time.

The presence of illegals in this plant, and al Qaeda's interest in it, plus the fact it manufactures MREs, may all be a lark. But I wouldn't bet on that. It's a slam dunk that points two and three are related, and that point one is at least interesting to our enemy. Liberals, Bush family, still want to argue that securing the border isn't relevant to our long-term security interests?

Al Qaeda operatives could have done quite a bit of damage from this one plant, which as I've just said is vulnerable to infiltration by virtue of its position near the porous border with Mexico. We should at a minimum screen such manufacturing centers, as they are vital to the war effort, and non-citizens should have to go through a few extra hurdles before gaining employment there. That several illegals ended up working there shows just how unserious we still are about this war.

Posted by B. Preston at 01:36 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack


I'm sure the ultra-leftists will chalk this story up to bias from the "conservative" media, but it does look like John Kerry wrote up the after-action report, inconsistent with the facts of the mission in question, that won him a Purple Heart and Bronze Star, ending his combat time in Vietnam.

In layman terms, that means Kerry pretty much awarded himself two medals he hadn't earned, one of which he knew would get him out of Vietnam.

Posted by B. Preston at 12:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Who's for a reinstated draft? Lefty pundit Kevin Drum. Who's against the draft? Lefty pundit Kevin Drum. North Georgia Dogma explains that it's not just John Kerry who is for something before he's against it.

Posted by B. Preston at 08:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 30, 2004


Forgers should fear the blogosphere.

(via Allah)

Posted by B. Preston at 10:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Not very spirited, but very substantive. Before I get to the substance, though, what in the world was Teresa Heinz Kerry thinking by walking into the auditorium chewing gum? How crass is that?


Few zingers, almost no memorable lines from either candidate. For me the breakdown between the two is over whether you can make sense of their ideas and then agree or disagree with them.

Bush's foreign policy ideas are simply and straightforward, and boil down to fighting terrorists over there rather than right here. If we have a choice or can make it more likely that a bomb goes off in Baghdad or Baltimore, we will try to arrange things so that the bomb goes off in Baghdad. We will not allow anyone to dictate to us when or where we will defend ourselves, and we will back that up by not kowtowing to states that try to thwart our efforts.

Kerry's foreign policy boils down to trying to get other countries to follow us into something he sees and sells as a dangerous mistake. How likely is he to get anyone to buy that? I'd say not very likely, but maybe that's just me. Kerry is very good at doling out specific figures and situations, but very bad at tying those facts and situations up into a coherent whole philosophy. Bush's problem is the exact opposite: He has a terrible time citing specifics, but gets the generalities right. Stay on offense to play the best defense, etc.

Where I think Bush lost an opportunity to strike, and hard, was when Kerry vowed to end the research into nuclear bunker busters. He said he would shut that program down if elected. Bush should have shot back by citing all the other weapons programs Kerry tried to shut down, such as the B2, the Abrams tank, the Apache helicopter, etc, and then point out how each has been vital to the war. But in some ways that goes back to the specifics problem. Bush also lost an opportunity, imho, to remind and inform viewers that letting the UN take over the occupation immediately after the war would have been a colossal mistake in that it would have allowed the Oil-For-Food criminals to cover their tracks before we could stop them. Too bad--that would have made for a very uncomfortable round of UN defenses from Kerry.

Kerry lost an opportunity just to connect his lifetime and public record with strong defense. He must have referred to his serving in Vietnam, directly or obliquely, two dozen times. Note to Kerry: We know. But what will you do about this war, right now? He says he would bring in France and Germany, when they have made clear they want no part of Iraq, and would spurn China, Russia, Japan and South Korea over North Korea, when that would do no good at all and much harm. If there was a gaffe in this debate, Kerry committed it with his line about pre-emptive action having to pass a "global test." Bush rightly chided him for it, but I don't think it'll have legs for more than a day or two if at all. In proposing summits and meetings and lots of jaw-jaw, Kerry came across to me as an indecisive man who wants to win popularity contests. Granted the election is a popularity contest, but the war isn't, and he didn't make much ground with me as a wartime leader capable of making tough and unpopular calls. I don't think he can make those kind of calls and stick with them come what may.

Where Bush scored was in his relentless simplicity, and here I think he did quite well. He made the case that Iraq is central to the war on jihad. He made the case that wavering or indecision can be lethal, and then made the case that he exhibits neither trait while Kerry continually exhibits both. He made the case that America reserves the right to defend itself, that our true allies should be appreciated instead of denigrated, and that we have to remain steadfast if we are to win.

Honestly I can't really name an area where Kerry scored with me. He seemed at turns in command of the facts or greasily untrustworthy (must be that smile he'd flash when the president said something Kerry didn't like). He kept hammering away at the president for not securiing Iraq's nuclear sites after the invasion, but never made the connection (and hopes you don't either) that a country as oil-rich as Iraq has no need of nuclear programs for energy. He tried to hammer away at Bush over Iran and North Korea, but his facts came up short several times and he never acknowledged the peaceful disarmament of Libya. President Bush was right to bring that up several times, and I was glad to hear him refer to the Proliferation Security Initiative.

All in all, a narrow Bush win, only because he didn't lose it and because he came across to me as the most clearheaded and authortative. I'm not exacly an undecided voter, but Kerry just didn't come across as someone I want leading the country. He's wrong on Iraq. He's wrong on North Korea, and on Iran, and on the best way to win the war. Bush is right on all those points, so he wins.

MORE: On the other hand, Hugh Hewitt plans to give "global test" the legs of a Kenyan marathoner. It is the only gaffe (other than Teresa's attempt to leave the auditorium by going right through the audience) of the entire debate, so it may sprout those legs and run for a while.

MORE: I thought Kerry's line about invading Mexico was idiotic when he said it. Turns out that yes indeedy, it was idiotic.

Spoons notes that the first country we invaded after Pearl Harbor was...drum roll please...Morocco.

And I'm touched that Spoons thought of me when Bush mentioned PSI. Though lately it seems that this humble blog's entire audience has left it, I've obviously gotten through to somebody about something.

MORE: Henry Hanks has a roundup of debate points the MSM will probably ignore.

I would like one Democrat/Kerry supporter to step and explain why their positions on Iraq and North Korea are so contradictory--in Iraq, Coalition, Good; in North Korea, Coalition, Bad. That looks to me like just trying to find some reason to express a difference with Bush, whether it makes any strategic sense or not.

MORE: Lileks is brilliant today:

I can’t take any more talk about bringing allies to the table. Which ones? Brazil? Mynmar? Microfrickin’nesia? Are there some incredibly important and powerful nations out there whose existence has hitherto escaped me? Fermany? Gerance? The Galactic Order of the Belgian Dominion? Did we piss off the Vulcans? Who? If we mean “France and Germany,” then please explain to me why the reluctant participation of these two countries somehow bestows the magic kiss of legitimacy.

To the above I add a question: Why do French and German decisions carry more weight with certain people than, say, Japanese or Polish decisions? Especially Japanese, which economically and military could take both France and Germany in a headlock and give them a Dutch rub that would leave a permanent mark. Why are the Jacques and Helmuts so much more valuable in a war than the Koizumis? Last time I checked, France is prone to roll over to German tanks, and Germany is prone to collapse once Der Fuerher puts a bullet in his head. We had to nuke Japan to get them to quit fighting. Think about that next time you see Kerry smirk because Bush reminds him that our coalition is bigger than Kerry lets on.

As for answering the question, I suspect race is a factor. Really. Why else sigh over the French but pledge to chase off the Chinese, Japanese, and South Koreans? What's the difference? Shape of the eyes, color of the skin, that's what. Do you have a better suggestion?

MORE: Another stray thought from last night. Kerry and the Democrats keep yammering that Bush's policies have increased recruitment for al Qaeda. That's a very arguable statement, and actually says nothing about al Qaeda's ability to fully train its new recruits (made more difficult if not impossible by the conquest of Afghanistan). It also says nothing about whether Bush policies are actually right or wrong.

How so?

When the war between the US and Japan started in earnest, millions of young American men streamed into recruitment offices to enlist to fight. But you know what? Millions of young Japanese men did the exact same thing--they rushed down to enlist in the Imperial military to fight against us. Did that mean FDR screwed up when he vowed to fight on until ultimate victory? Was that bit of blather just the insensitive speech of a unilateralist cowboy?

You know what else? After Pearl Harbor enlistment went up in Germany, too, and Germany hadn't attacked and we hadn't attacked it, yet.

Arguing that our enemy's increased recruitment means we're on the wrong course just isn't an argument about the rightness or wrongness of the policy.

Posted by B. Preston at 10:20 PM | Comments (21) | TrackBack


Trust a terrorist who plegdes to stop killing people? Oh, why not?

COPENHAGEN, Denmark - A Danish man who was released from U.S. military detention in Guantanamo Bay told a television interviewer he plans to travel to Chechnya and join Islamic militants fighting Russian forces.

In a live interview with the DR-1 television channel Wednesday night, Slimane Hadj Abderrahmane said he planned to go into hiding and then "try to find a way to Chechnya."

As a condition of his release from Guantanamo in February, Abderrahmane pledged to refrain from warfare. Of the pledge, he said, "They can use it as toilet paper over there in the United States."

A catch-and-release approach to terrorism is no way to win a war. Let them live, and they'll either kill you or sick their lawyer on you:

In June, a Danish television crew followed Abderrahmane as he traveled to London to meet British Guantanamo detainee Tarek Dergoul to discuss a possible lawsuit against the United States.

There is room for improvement in the conduct of the war on terrorism, but unfortunately all that room is far to the right of both Bush and Kerry, and will therefore remain entirely unexplored.

Posted by B. Preston at 03:57 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


It's a blog, it's a radio show, it's a Festivus miracle! It's Pundit Review. Check 'em out, and listen Saturdays on the web if you don't live in the Boston area and on the radio (1060 AM) if you do.

From Pundit Review you will learn: The real reason John Kerry turned himself orange before the presidential debate--in Florida.

On the radio show, you will hear: Dean Esmay, Scott Johnson, Don Luskin and maybe even yours truly.

Posted by B. Preston at 01:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 29, 2004


Suppose President Bush wins re-election next month, and suppose it turns out that we need to strike another terrorist state. Say, for instance, it becomes undeniable somehow that Syria, a long-time hostile state and open and flagrant terrorist sugar daddy, is directly financing and supporting the insurgency in Iraq, and the only way to stop it is to remove the Assad oligarchy and replace it with something else.

What would the Democrats do? Would they support it?

Put that at the back of your mind and think for a minute about the draft. Not the wild rumors that President Bush is all set to re-instate it after he wins the election, but the draft itself. There is no need for a draft now. The President, SecDef and other administration officials have gone on record against the draft. It is instead a collection of leftist Democrats working to bring back the draft so that they can undermine support for the war. That is pretty much what Rep. Rangle said when he introduced his draft bill last year--he wanted it to undermine the war. He found more than a dozen like-minded leftists in Congress to co-sign his bill, and Sen. Fritz Hollings introduced a similar bill in the Senate. All supporters of both bills are leftwing Democrats, and all intend the bills to undermine the war.

Not to chase a tangent too far, but think about that for a minute. We were attacked, and for these Democrats a sensible response was to do whatever they could to undermine our resolve to destroy the forces that attacked us. Why? Are such people worthy of the support of average Americans?

As for the draft itself, as I've mentioned there is no need for one now. But what if we get ourselves into a situation where we need one? What if, say, the Iranians (who have lately been promising to "crush America") find a way to lob a crude nuke at the Green Zone in Baghdad, destroying an entire US division or close enough to render it inoperative. Or Korea goes hot again and we need to insert a massive number or ground troops there. What if one of these situations or some other situation arises where we find that we do have to re-instate the draft?

What will the Democrats do, with President Bush leading the effort?

I think you know the answer to these questions. The Democrats will not rally to the President's side. They will not support any further military action in the war as long as George W. Bush is President, no matter how necessary that action may be. They have gone too far with their hate for him and his supporters to turn back now. They would rather see America brought to her knees than support President Bush in any endeavor. Tell me I'm wrong about that, and offer solid evidence to back yourself up.

What the Democrats will do is take advantage of the situation. They have poisoned the well in both extending the war beyond Iraq however necessary it might be, and in making so much noise about the draft that re-instating it even if absolutely necessary will be politically impossible for President Bush. They will hatch new conspiracy theories, offer new doom and gloom and probably try to impeach President Bush. They have set out over the past few years to tear up the social contract of this country and make a new one, unilaterally and without the input of fully half the country.

From their actions on the war and on domestic policy (think taxes, judicial appointments, etc), it's easy now to see what the Democrats really want. They want to set up the political environment so that a Republican president is unable to accomplish a single thing, no matter how right or necessary and no matter what the American people think of it. No matter what the Constitution says about presidential responsibilities or authority, the Democrats want any Republican president stripped of power. Conversely, any Democrat in the White House will get carte blanche.

Just look at the contrasting situations in Iraq and Kosovo. President Clinton's actions in Kosovo never had the UN's backing, yet his fellow Democrats never balked at supporting him. When Clinton wanted to invade Iraq in 1998, even Senators Kerry and Kennedy supported it, though the national security environment with respect to Iraq in that year was far less dire than after 9-11, and though France and several other allies were dead set against it. President Clinton not only bombed a Sudanese pill factory on flimsy evidence (which he claimed directly linked Iraq and al Qaeda, actually), but without even consulting the Joint Chiefs of Staff at all, yet where were the Democrats to howl at him for concocting a war from Arkansas? Clinton and his national security staff publicly stated dozens of times that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and would use them, either against his own people or a neighbor or against Israel or the US. Where were the Democrats then to oppose his "war for oil?"

They supported him, solely because he was a Democrat. And when he lied under oath and suborned the perjury of others, Democrats looked the other way.

When President Bush launched the invasion of Afghanistan, many Democrats joined the leftist press to warn of the "brutal Afghan winter," the "graveyard of empires," etc. When President Bush started preparing us for war in Iraq, the Democrats tried to use the UN to tie ropes around him, and when he used the exact same arguments as Clinton had used before to justify action in Iraq, many of the same Democrats that were willing to follow Clinton's lead called Bush a liar. What gives here?

It's simple. The Democrats as a party, and I'm speaking not about the rank and file so much as the elected and official leaders and assorted mouthpieces and activists, do not accept George W. Bush as President of the United States. They never have and they never will, and have set about poisoning his presidency though it could very well place the nation in extreme danger.

If asked many will tell you that they blame that attitude on Florida or on the "rush to war," but the fact is study after study showed Florida was decided fairly and a simple look at a calendar shows that the rush to war took more than a solid year. Confronted with those facts, they will retreat to smearing his religion, his intellect, the place he is from or the look on his face. They can always find a reason to hate him and those of us who support him, and they do hate him and us and they don't mind shouting it from the highest mountain over and over again.

With all of this in mind, go read Armed Liberal's question to us right of center bloggers. He wants to know if we will support John Kerry should he win the presidency.

I reject the question because I think it is unfair and infantile. The left has demonstrated its own take on that question for the past four years, by calling Bush "Hitler" and people like myself "digital brownshirts" and worse, because we dare to think this country is worth defending. The Daily Kos cheered the deaths of American civilians in Iraq. Michael Moore cheers on their killers to create a river of American blood to avenge our immoral deposing of the maligned Saddam Hussein, a man who ran Iraq so benevolently that Moore saw no problem depicting that country as a place where children flew kites and never feared the knock on the door in the dead of night. Do these people and the man who represents them deserve my support?

My answer is, obviously, No. Should John Kerry win in November, he will not be "my president." Go ahead and howl, liberals, and call me every name you want.

But the fact is, Kerry isn't fit to be dogcatcher. He probably committed treason in 1970 when he met with the Communists in Paris, and he certainly stepped over every conceivable line when he smeared Vietnam vets to a man as war criminals in 1971. More relevant to today, his defeatism is feeding the terrorists and his talk of pulling out of Iraq encourages them to keep on killing. And the party he represents is corrupt to the core and needs to be destroyed and rebuilt. Today's Democrat leadership is that bad.

Should I support the man who has done these things and represents that party? Should I support a man who helped one enemy defeat American and is apparently bent on helping another enemy defeat us now? We're no longer talking about a difference of opinion on tax rates or education policy, but on the right and duty and ability of this nation to defend itself. I believe Kerry will be a disaster if he is elected, and I intend to see to it that he isn't elected. But if he wins, because he and his party have maligned me personally and because they are apparently banking on disaster to put them in power, they won't represent me. And if you were to ask them, they would be fine with that (see the latest leftist pettiness for an example that proves me right). To them there is nothing--at all--worse than a Southern Republican who is also an evangalical Christian. Not even a terrorist.

I don't care if Kerry were to win by 20 points and carry every single state. He and his party are hostile to nearly everything I believe in, and have set about to marginalize me while they also shred the social fabric of the nation. Did you know that Bush policies amount to dragging a black man to his death? Did you know that he has a secret plan to bring back the draft, poison your water and established a theocracy while he puts liberals in death camps? Well, you're just not paying attention to the mainstream scare tactics of the Democrats and their MoveOn allies.

Because of all this, duly elected or not, John Kerry won't be my president, not without earning my respect and my support the old fashioned way. I once served this country though at the time it was led by a man--Bill Clinton--I opposed. I know what it means to be a patriot, I know the meaning of honor and duty. John Kerry is a dishonorable man; his party is a national disgrace and in its actions and statements a menace to our safety. They won't have my support automatically. They will have to earn it. And honestly I don't think they are capable of doing that.

Posted by B. Preston at 10:47 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack


Al Gore is giving debating advice to John Kerry, which, as the person on the listserv that sent me Gore's piece pointed out, is a bit like the Boston Red Sox dispensing advice on how to win the World Series. Nevertheless, Gore's advice is rather fiskable, as you'll soon see.

How to Debate George Bush

Stop right there. The best piece of advice Gore could give Kerry is not to be Gore. And notice that the title didn't say "How to Win a Debate with George Bush." That's because Gore doesn't know how to do that.

This year, as usual, the dominance of attack advertisements on television has made it hard to get a clear picture of where the candidates stand. But the same media revolution that brought us the 30-second commercial also brought us televised presidential debates - and ever since the first of them 44 years ago, they have played a crucial role in shaping voters' opinions of the candidates.

Actually, we pretty much know where Bush stands: For fighting terrorists on Iraqi and Afghanistan streets instead of our streets, for cutting taxes, against gay marriage, pro-life, etc etc. What we don't know is where Kerry stands on any of those issues. Is that the fault of attack ads, as Gore believes, or is it the fault of a candidate who could literally debate himself--and lose--on all those issues. We don't even know Kerry's natural skin color, for crimeny's sake. One day he's ashen gray, the next day he's Agent Orange. After 19 years as an absentee Senator and over a year as a presidential candidate, we still don't know where Kerry stands on anything. That is Kerry's fault.

America has long been devoted to the clash between opposing advocates as the best way to evaluate information. In this era of media clutter, it is all the more important for voters to have this moment of simple clarity when the candidates appear before them stripped of advisers, sound bites and media spin.

Duh. Is this worthy of the New York Times? I suppose it's better than anything MoDo has written, but still--I wouldn't write a paragraph like that for my blog, much less an actual publication. Presumably the Times paid for that hot air. Suckers.

My advice to John Kerry is simple: be prepared for the toughest debates of your career. While George Bush's campaign has made "lowering expectations" into a high art form, the record is clear - he's a skilled debater who uses the format to his advantage. There is no reason to expect any less this time around. And if anyone truly has "low expectations" for an incumbent president, that in itself is an issue.

Huh? Can somebody make sense of that last sentence for me? Is it a swipe at the president or at everyone else? Not clear, Mr. Gore. Points off.

But more important than his record as a debater is Mr. Bush's record as a president. And therein lies the true opportunity for John Kerry - because notwithstanding the president's political skills, his performance in office amounts to a catastrophic failure.

5.4 percent unemployment, low taxes, positive growth at historic rates. 50 million people on the other side of the world freed from the yoke of tyranny. Thousands of terrorists killed and captured, those captured turning state's evidence against their jihadi cohorts. Fewer of our troops killed in two years of relentless war in two countries than terrorists killed on 9-11. Alliances with Japan, Australia, Britian and a few true friends stronger than ever--faux alliances with hapless ingrates exposed for all to see. This is a catastrophe? I'll take four more years of it, thank you ver much.

And the debates represent a time to hold him to account. For the voters, these debates represent an opportunity to explore four relevant questions: Is America on the right course today, or are we off track? If we are headed in the wrong direction, what happened and who is responsible? How do we get back on the right path to a safer, more secure, more prosperous America? And, finally, who is best able to lead us to that path?

Duh. Gore is a regular Oracle at Delphi.

A clear majority of Americans believe that we are heading in the wrong direction. The reasons are obvious. The situation in Iraq is getting worse. Osama bin Laden is alive and plotting against us. About 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. Forty-five million Americans are living without health insurance. Medicare premiums are the highest they've ever been. Environmental protections have been eviscerated.

Liberal pabulum. Spew it if you want, but it won't do a bit of good. People want to know whether Kerry will be a better commander in chief in a time of war, period. And he hasn't done anything to reassure anyone on that.

In the coming debates, Senator Kerry has an opportunity to show voters that today American troops and American taxpayers are shouldering a huge burden with no end in sight because Mr. Bush took us to war on false premises and with no plan to win the peace.

False premises? They were the exact same premises Bill Clinton--your old boss--used to drum up a war with Iraq in 1998. If they're false, it's because you and your boss and your minions lied. As for the burden, liberal pabulum again. These people don't want missile defense, don't want pre-emptive action of any kind, didn't chase down al Qaeda at any point during the 90s, all while trying to take over the entire medical system and while raising taxes to pay for things like midnight basketball leagues, yet they have the gall to whine about the costs of the war.

On 9-11, this country was attacked in broad daylight. Who do you expect to pay for the war to avenge that attack and prevent more like it--the Tooth Fairy?


Mr. Kerry has an opportunity to demonstrate the connection between job losses and Mr. Bush's colossal tax break for the wealthy. And he can remind voters that Mr. Bush has broken his pledge to expand access to health care.

Job losses started before Bush became president, therefore before his tax cuts went into effect. His tax cuts, as a matter of fact, probably staved off a post 9-11 depression.

Senator Kerry can also use these debates to speak directly to voters and lay out a hopeful vision for our future. If voters walk away from the debates with a better understanding of where our country is, how we got here and where each candidate will lead us if elected, then America will be the better for it. The debate tomorrow should not seek to discover which candidate would be more fun to have a beer with. As Jon Stewart of the "The Daily Show'' nicely put in 2000, "I want my president to be the designated driver.''

The debates aren't a time for rhetorical tricks. It's a time for an honest contest of ideas. Mr. Bush's unwillingness to admit any mistakes may score him style points. But it makes hiring him for four more years too dangerous a risk. Stubbornness is not strength; and Mr. Kerry must show voters that there is a distinction between the two.

I'm sorry, dozed off there for a minute. Were you saying something we didn't already know? Oh, then I guess I didn't miss anything.

If Mr. Bush is not willing to concede that things are going from bad to worse in Iraq, can he be trusted to make the decisions necessary to change the situation? If he insists on continuing to pretend it is "mission accomplished," can he accomplish the mission? And if the Bush administration has been so thoroughly wrong on absolutely everything it predicted about Iraq, with the horrible consequences that have followed, should it be trusted with another four years?

The premise is wrong. We knew the terrorists would ramp up the chaos the closer we get to the election. The pre-war intel was mostly Clinton-era stuff--if it was wrong, doesn't the previous administration, of which Gore was the second banana, have a few things to answer for too? The "mission accomplished" bit is just one more bit of phony leftist "reality." That was for the ship returning from duty, not a signal that the entire war was over. That meme just won't die, will it? Tiresome.

The biggest single difference between the debates this year and four years ago is that President Bush cannot simply make promises. He has a record. And I hope that voters will recall the last time Mr. Bush stood on stage for a presidential debate. If elected, he said, he would support allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada. He promised that his tax cuts would create millions of new jobs. He vowed to end partisan bickering in Washington. Above all, he pledged that if he put American troops into combat: "The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well defined."

Comparing these grandiose promises to his failed record, it's enough to make anyone want to, well, sigh.

A bit of humor from the Most Robotic Man in America. Ok, not a bad ending, since the sigh helped cost Gore the White House. But the stuff prior to that? We got attacked, not only physically but economically (the terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, remember?). We were in a recession at the time, and that had started on Clinton's watch. Lost jobs happen when the economy endures a double-punch like that, but the remarkable thing is we're back on our feet and growing. Any credit for that? No, just more whining.

Gore's advice to Kerry is equal parts dull, uninteresting blather and unmitigated nonsense. Take it for what it's worth.

Next up: Dan Rath gives bloggers advice on how to get the story right the first time, every time.

Posted by B. Preston at 01:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Snookered by leftwing moonbats. Again. Thirty seconds with Google or a quick look at the House of Representatives' website would have been enough to prove that the only push for a military draft is coming from liberal America-hating Democrats, not the Bush White House. Yet C-BS ran with a "Bush is secretly going to draft your kid" story anyway. In fact, I did exactly that--went to the House web site and looked up the draft bill--when the story resurfaced last week. Without the benefit of editorial oversight or Viacom's legal batallions or Dan Rather's vaunted go get 'em instincts, I managed to debunk the draft story singlehandedly.

In other words, Sumner Redstone and Viacom aren't getting their money's worth from C-BS or Rather.

The whole thing is unbelievable, yet completely unsurprising.

UPDATE: Jim Lindgren exposes C-BS' unholy alliance with MoveOn and Salon. Ok, Salon is very arguably an outlet for journalism, but could some C-BS defender explain why that network is apparently giving advance copies of its stories to MoveOn, a radical leftist advocacy group?

INDC Journal seems to have the answer--they're biased (we knew that). He interviews several C-BS types, and blindered hilarity ensues.

UPDATE: Look out, the Texas Rangers are now on the trail of the forger. Not these Texas Rangers. These Texas Rangers. They're the Lone Star State's equivalent of the FBI, and they're good. Think this guy, minus Tonto.

Posted by B. Preston at 12:20 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack


In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror

Michelle Malkin

America reeled from a devastating surprise attack that left her Pacific fleet either in ruins or on the bottom of the ocean. The shock of that infamous day gave way to the brutal realities of a sudden war, and an enemy that won victory after victory against American, Philippine, Chinese, British and other forces. Simply put, the Pacific Ocean was not far from becoming a vast oceanic empire in the grip of a dangerous foe. That foe would soon shell the American West Coast, briefly strip us of the Aleutian Islands and wage a long and bloody war against us.

It was in this context that a secretive group of geniuses working for the US government uncovered a shocking secret: Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of alien residents and even citizens of the United States may be members of an intelligence ring that had already passed on sensitive military data to the enemy’s high command. Many of those people also lived dangerously close to much of America’s industrial and military might in Hawaii and along the West Coast. They were almost certainly still working for the enemy government to pass along sensitive information, and might be planning acts of sabotage that could cripple our ability to fend off a possible invasion. These people—some first generation immigrants, some American citizens and children of those immigrants, and some Americans ethnically connected to and educated by the enemy—may constitute a clear and persistent threat to the health of the Republic.

That secretive group of geniuses worked for an outfit that would come to be known as MAGIC. They had uncovered the secret Japanese intelligence ring, a ring that had passed on information used in planning the attack on Pearl Harbor, by decoding communications traffic between Tokyo and its embassies around the world. How they decoded those messages and what was done with their data could make a fine story in and of itself, but Michelle Malkin’s latest book, In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror, is not primarily concerned with MAGIC’s incredible feat of engineering and decoding. It is concerned with mining the history of what has become in many respects a “bloody shirt” in American racial politics, the internment of Japanese Isei, Nisei and Kibei during World War II.

Malkin’s central argument is that the combination of the attack on Pearl Harbor, by which Japan alone demonstrated the ability to successfully conduct a major military strike against American forces at their home base, and the MAGIC data, which was only known in full to a handful of US officials including President Roosevelt, formed a unique situation in American history, and that situation justified the drastic measures that were eventually taken against Japanese citizens living in America and their offspring who were US citizens. That is a conclusion upon which reasonable minds may disagree, but where there can be no disagreement is on the facts Malkin presents. Throughout the book, she peppers the story with footnote after footnote, and finishes with more than one hundred pages of actual files from MAGIC and other sources. Her research is unimpeachable.

But why, after so many decades, write this book now? What is the point of revisiting such a sore point in American history? And why is an accomplished and rising star entering an arena sure to stir up strident criticism? Malkin’s answer is that we have been fed a steady diet of misconceptions and outright falsehoods about the wartime internment, and that distorted view of history is hamstringing our war effort against the forces of jihad today. Malkin suggests that racial profiling, and the evacuation, relocation and internment of Japanese Americans that followed, was a reasonable response to a demonstrated threat. While she emphatically does not argue that internment and relocation are necessary today, she argues and demonstrates well that racial profiling should become a tool in our arsenal to thwart future terrorist attacks. When the average jihadi is easily identifiable as a young male from a any of a handful of Islamic countries and by other travel and economic characteristics, Malkin’s case is all the more reasonable. Yet political correctness, often waving the internment bloody shirt as an example of American paranoia and even brutality, is so far keeping us from acting in a simple and fairly unobtrusive way to keep ourselves safe from would-be terrorist killers. Instead of hassling a few who fit the profile of a terrorist, we are choosing to hassle everyone, and thereby probably doing little about the actual terrorist threat.

Since the book hit the stores a few weeks ago, Malkin’s critics have mounted a non-stop campaign to discredit her. Some, such as historian Eric Muller, literally judged the book by its cover and then proceeded to hurl academic charge after charge at her in the apparent hope that something would stick. She has refuted him ably, and left him sputtering. Others accused Malkin of being a “self-hater,” as though a woman of Filipino descent can’t write critically about the actions of Japanese immigrants during a war more than half a century ago, and as though all Asians are the same and therefore criticizing one is criticizing them all, and none of them should criticize each other lest it sow dissension in the racial ranks. What nonsense. Most of Malkin’s critics have one thing in common, which is a complete disregard for her arguments on the merits. And as the husband of a Japanese immigrant myself, I see neither self-hate nor racism nor poor scholarship in Malkin’s book.

In Defense of Interment is a courageous and well-written book, authored by a woman very much in command of the relevant facts. It may not convince everyone, or even anyone, that interning Japanese Americans during World War II was the right policy, but it should convince fair-minded readers of a few things. First, that the Roosevelt administration entered into the internment program reluctantly, and only once the threat of a loose population of potentially disloyal citizens, spies and saboteurs was made plain by the decoded MAGIC messages and Japan’s demonstrated ability to attack the United States. Second, the evacuation, relocation and internment programs were in no way similar to the Nazi death camps responsible for the murder of millions of Jews across Europe, and that suggesting any similarity—a common trick of leftist historians and researchers—ignores the bulk of the facts (such as the fact that the Japanese American population actually grew during the war, even within the camps). Third, that though racial profiling and even racism were factors in the decision to relocate and intern some 112,000 Japanese Americans, racism was not the primary motivation. If it had been, internment and related programs would not have included thousands of aliens from other enemy states—which they did—and these programs would have included Japanese Americans from all over the United States instead of merely the West Coast, as was the case. In short, Malkin’s book should convince readers that most of what they know about the wartime internment is wrong. Those who today decry “Ashcroft’s Amerikkka” and the “draconian” Patriot Act should also gain a bit of needed perspective from Malkin’s book: Bush administration policy constructed with the help of Congressional Democrats and Republicans alike is quite mild compared to the Roosevelt policy that almost certainly disrupted a massive hostile spy operation and may have prevented catastrophic acts of enemy sabotage and deadly mischief on American soil.

Posted by B. Preston at 09:58 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack


Terrorists have freed two Italian hostages, and are apparently poised to free British hostage Ken Bigley:

AN ISLAMIC website has reportedly posted a message that British hostage Ken Bigley is on the verge of a dramatic release in Iraq.

The 62-year-old contractor has been held by terror group Tawhid wal Jihad for almost a fortnight, and witnessed the brutal beheading of American colleagues Eugene Armstrong and Jack Hensley.

The message, if true, is the news Mr Bigley's family has been craving since making several public and emotional appeals to British Prime Minister Tony Blair to negotiate his release.

The message has been attributed directly to Mr Bigley's captors, according to The Sun in London.

The group is linked to notorious Jordanian henchman Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is one of the most wanted men in Iraq.

The statement said the group "frees the prisoner and saves his life and warns all those who collaborate with the aggressor, in whatever form, to leave the country otherwise they will meet the same fate as his predecessors, that is beheading."

If they free Bigley, the move is obviously meant to do one thing: It sends our allies and their personnel the message that working with us means death. It puts pressure on allied governments, such as Blair's teetering administration, to distance themselves from us in order to save their citizens. It's an attempt to drive a wedge between the US and our European allies in Iraq. And thanks to Diana Kerry, that same message is also coming straight from the Democrats and their nominee and therefore has a greater chance of succeeding.

MORE: Related:

The shadow that has been cast over this week's Labour Party conference in Brighton has been carefully contrived.

By killing two Americans and then keeping Bigley alive, by parading him on videotape, by putting words in his mouth that held Blair responsible for his fate, and then by ensuring his plight became a central issue at Labour's conference, Zarqawi has manipulated the British media, and Britons' emotions, to serve his purposes.

Just as al-Qa'ida scented weakness among the Spanish population when it plotted its bombing of Madrid for the climax of Spain's general election campaign, so it has been carefully using Bigley's capture to shift British public opinion in an anti-war direction at a time when Blair is under an even more intense spotlight than usual.

And from the terrorists' point of view, the British media have played their role perfectly.

Read the rest. A drum I've beaten often here is that we're engaged in a post-modern war. That means the battlefield of ideas and public opinion acts as a fifth dimension to the battlefields in Iraq, Afghanistan and everywhere troops directly engage terrorists and jihadis. Your mind is just as much a front line in this war as Fallujah if you're swayed by the events and portents of the day and don't focus on the big picture. Defeatism, either in the media or from the political opposition, helps the terrorists by encouraging them to continue a fight that in purely military terms they know they have no chance of winning. That means more people will die. There will be more beheadings and more roadside bombs as long as the jihadis believe those actions make us rethink the war.

The only way they can win is if we give up. And we will only give up if we allow ourselves to be convinced that we've already lost our chances of winning.

Posted by B. Preston at 09:12 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

September 28, 2004


Here is an excellent new site--written by a former member of the Coalition Provisional Authority--aimed at debunking the media myths and general misconceptions about the war in Iraq and its ongoing aftermath. It's called The Truth About Iraq.

On the blog portion of the site (it's an extensive site), you'll find the following:

If you missed PM Allawi's speech in front of Congress yesterday, and you care at all about Iraq, do yourself a favor and read the transcript of the speech. It was inspiring if you have been there... presumably similarly inspiring if you have not. I'll post the transcript below.

A reporter asked a question in the press conference afterwards:

"Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister, I'd like to ask about the Iraqi people. Both of you have spoken for them today, and, yet, over the past several months there have been polls conducted by the Coalition Provisional Authority, by the Oxford Institute and other reputable organizations, that have found very strong majorities do not see the United States as a liberator, but as an occupier, are unhappy with American policy and want us out. Don't the real voices of the Iraqi people, themselves, contradict the rosy scenarios you're painting here today?"

This is typical. Probably 70 percent of the poll numbers in those polls are positive in some fashion, and the media (was this guy from CBS?) latches on to the bad stuff. Check out the myths and facts section. When Iraqis are asked to name their most important issue, departure of the Coalition Forces gets 6%.

The author, Steven Moore, should know. He was the CPA's political advisor in Iraq and is probably the world's foremost authority on Iraqi public opinion.

MORE: Related. Troops are terrified of a Kerry presidency.

Posted by B. Preston at 06:53 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack


I thought that all the Iraqis are against us and for the jihad. That's what John Kerry and Michael Moore are always telling us, and why would they lie? It turns out at least some Iraqis have our six over there:

FALLUJAH, Iraq - At approximately 8 a.m., Iraqi National Guard soldiers and U.S. Marines thwarted two separate suicide-car bomber attacks on a joint forward operating base near Karmah.

The first vehicle was a black BMW that exploded while driving through
the barrier system outside the base. It was followed seconds later by a
blue Kia pick-up truck, which also detonated in the barrier system
outside compound.

The close partnership and swift actions of Iraqi Security Forces and
Marines guarding the compound are credited with identifying and
preventing the attackers from entering the base. There were no serious
Multi-National Forces-Iraq injuries.

Terrorists and insurgents are unsuccessfully attempting to interrupt the
progress of a free Iraq. Multi-National Force-Iraq is committed to
assisting the Iraqi Interim Government in organizing, training and
equipping Iraqi Security Forces to provide security for the people of

And while we're on the subject of the war and how it's going, US troops have captured a significant anti-coalition terrorist kingpin.

TIKRIT, Iraq -- Task Force Danger Soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 21st Infantry Regiment detained the suspected leader of an anti-Iraqi forces insurgent cell during a raid in Kirkuk on Sept. 27 at about 3 p.m.

The Soldiers detained Husayn Salman Muhammad Al-Jabburi, suspected of leading a Kirkuk-Hawaijah based cell aligning itself with Ansar Al Sunna.

Ansar Al Sunna is a faction of Ansar Al Islam and reportedly has close ties with the Al-Zarqawi network. The Soldiers transported Al-Jabburi to a Multi-National Forces detention facility for questioning. No injuries were reported in the incident.

Successes in Fallujah and Najaf--two of the worst sinkholes in all of Iraq--on the same day. Why don't these success stories make the cut on Dan Rather?

Posted by B. Preston at 05:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 27, 2004


We're about an inch from getting this campaign underway. Jason Clarke has designed our official website which is just about ready to go live, and we are on the verge of partnering up with an established troop-oriented support group to handle our donations.

I've learned quite a bit since Thursday, most notably what it means and takes to form a non-profit as recognized by the IRS. That process has been the hold-up and the sole reason we haven't already started accepting donations. It turns out that that process is a little bit expensive and quite time-consuming, but absolutely necessary if you want to work within the law, and we certainly do want to do that.

What we have decided to do is partner up with an established group that is already sending care packages to troops in Iraq. They will accept donations on our behalf, earmarked for Truth for Troops, and we'll use those funds to purchase and ship DVDs to the front. We should be able to announce how all of this will work very shortly, as in tomorrow.

While pursuing all of this, I've had the chance to speak briefly with Alan Peterson, director of FahrenHYPE 9-11. He's a great guy and after talking with him I'm really looking forward to seeing his film and working with him on Truth for Troops, of which he is an enthusiastic supporter.

So please bear with us for just a little while longer, and we'll have Truth for Troops battle-ready.

Posted by B. Preston at 08:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


The terrorist susptected of killing journalist Daniel Pearl has been shot dead in Pakistan.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- Pakistani officials say police have killed one of the most wanted militants in the country, a man suspected of being a top al Qaeda operative.

Amjad Hussain Farooqi was killed in an early morning raid in the small city of Nawab Shah, southern Pakistan, Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed told CNN on Monday.

Farooqi, who had a price of 2 million rupees ($34,000) on his head, has been accused of being involved in a spate of attacks.

Identified as a member of the Islamic militant group Harkat-ul-Jihad-e-Islami (Movement of Islam's Holy War), Farooqi was a suspect in two assassination attempts against Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf last year.

While Musharraf escaped injury in the second attempt after suicide car bombers attacked his motorcade, 15 people were killed and 45 were wounded.

Farooqi is also a suspect in the kidnapping and beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl two years ago, Ahmed said.

Posted by B. Preston at 08:25 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 26, 2004


John F. Kerry can't keep his feet off the landmines. Last week he accused Iraqi Prime Minster of lying--about conditions inside Iraq, while campaign mouthpiece Joe Lockhart described Allawi as a puppet.

A few months ago, Kerry tapped Mara Vanderslice to be his "religious advisor." Her presence on the campaign was supposed to help Kerry's outreach to the evangelical Christian community. One problem: Vanderslice (and the DNC's own religious advisor) supported Michael Newdow's attempt to get "under God" stricken from the Plege of Allegiance. Evangelicals despise that lawsuit, and aren't warm to anyone who supported it. Oops.

Now, Kerry's pulled the same boner with regard to the Cuban community. Think back a few years--what one issue might a Democrat be wise to keep buried? Name one issue that, brought back to the surface, just might remind Cubans that if they vote for John Kerry, they're putting Democrats back in charge of the executive branch of the government, and that that's a bad thing.

That issue: Elian Gonzalez.

And John Kerry has managed to bring Elian and his forced return to Castro's workers' paradise into the 2004 campaign. Take it away, NewsMax:

The Miami Herald reported Saturday that "a lawyer unpopular with many Cuban Americans for his role in the Elián González case will help prepare John Kerry for the upcoming presidential debate to be held at the University of Miami.”

That lawyer’s name is Gregory Craig, a well-connected Washington attorney who represented Elian Gonzalez’s father.

Craig worked closely with the Cuban government and Attorney General Janet Reno to gain custody of little Elian.

In the end, armed federal immigration officers stormed the home of Elian’s uncle and seized the boy. With the help of Reno and the Clinton White House, Craig successfully returned Elian to Castro’s custody.

Now, Craig has been tapped by John Kerry’s campaign to prepare him for his first debate with President Bush, which is scheduled for Sept. 30 in Miami.

The debate is in Miami, and Kerry has Janet Reno's man for Castro helping him out. I'd keep writing about how dumb this is, but I'm laughing so hard I can't keep my hands on the keyboard.

Posted by B. Preston at 04:17 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack


According to Debka, US forces got Zarqawi's #2 man:

On Thursday, September 23, US forces resorted to targeted assassination to dispose of Abu Anas al-Shami, a senior aide of the Jordanian al Qaeda mastermind, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in Baghdad.

His real identity, we reveal here, was Omar Yusef Juma’a, a Palestinian terrorist operations expert from the West Bank town of Tulkarm. DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources report that al-Shami was killed by an American missile in Baghdad’s Shiite slum district, Sadr City. However, the American military in Iraq is more sparing than Israeli forces with the specifics of a targeted assassination, and it is not clear if the missile was fired from a helicopter, a drone or one of the US special force units which patrol and mount ambushes in Baghdad, Fallujah and other insurgent hotbed towns.

No one knows exactly how many lieutenants Zarqawi has, probably 4 or five. But locating and killing a high-profile member of Zarqawi’s organization a few days after the capture of another top Zarqawi aide, known as Omar Baziyani (an alias), is a considerable American feat in its relentless offensive against the group behind the deadly suicide bombings and hostage-taking atrocities afflicting Iraq. These operations go on clandestinely behind the well-publicized US air strikes.

The news of Abu Anas’s death rippled quickly across at least two borders. A traditional Muslim “mourners’ tent” sprang up in the Haj Hassan district of the Jordanian capital, Amman. According to our Jordanian sources, candy was handed out to all comers, a custom borrowed from the ritual for Palestinian suicide killers who die in attacks on Israel and are honored as “martyrs.”

However on the Western Bank of the Jordan, DEBKAfile’s Palestinian sources report, Yasser Arafat ordered Juma’a’s kinfolk in Tulkarm to refrain from setting up a mourners’ tent lest the true identity of a top al Qaeda operative be blown and his Palestinian movement implicated.

Interesting. If this story holds up, we're getting good intel on the bad guys and then keeping mum as to just how we're going about eliminating them. Good.

Posted by B. Preston at 03:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


(With veneration to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Concord Hymn)

From Swift Boats they did brave the flood,
Their flag to autumn’s breeze unfurled,
Here again, embattled sailors stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world.

Their foe no longer silence kept,
Believing that the veteran sleeps;
That Time’s assured his treason‘s swept
Down history’s stream which backward creeps.

Tween hostile banks of media’s stream,
They fixed the sights of truth’s own gun;
Seeking but their honor to redeem,
And stay the march of Judas’ son.

Their Spirit made these warriors dare
To keep their nation’s honor free,
But Time and Nature will declare
Their honored place in history.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66

Posted by B. Preston at 03:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


Today's must-read:

The war we wage, the United States and its coalition of friends, is not a war on generic "terrorism," but on Islamic jihad — the spread of Islam by violent means. We wage it not against generic "terrorists," but against Islamic jihadists who dream of death and destruction, not to mention a caliphate, in their religion's name

If there was something tragi-farcical about Steven Spielberg receiving a knighthood from Jacques Chirac for "Schindler's List," there was also something tragi-farcically apt. Here we are, facing not World War III (the Cold War), but World War IV, "the war on terror." We see the gymnasium massacre in the Caucasus, and the bus bloodbath in Beersheba. We hear of the ongoing extermination of black Africans in Sudan, and the murders of 12 Nepalese cooks and cleaners in Iraq, where Iran and Al Qaeda support terrorist cadres in their efforts to suicide-bomb their way over the nascent Iraqi society. The Western mind reels and tries to come to terms with the global bloodletting (of the week).

We are experiencing a civilization-wide failure, even three years after 9/11, to define the terrorism born of Islam's core medieval precepts: violent jihad and dehumanizing dhimmitude. We see the same kind of terrorism in Russia that we see in Israel, Sudan and Iraq. We've seen it in Spain and we've seen in it Bali, and we've certainly seen it in the United States. We see it, but maybe we don't believe it — a failure that could ultimately be our undoing. Too many of us prefer to overlook the evils of World War IV and watch "Chevalier" Spielberg get a kiss on both cheeks from Jacques Chirac for dramatizing the evils of World War II.

Read the whole thing.

Posted by B. Preston at 10:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack