MuD & PHuD

I just caught two segments (the transcript is not available yet, so here's the best I can do) of the O’Reilly Factor on Fox wherein he talked to Michelle Malkin and Terry McAuliffe (separately). There are a few things about both conversations that bothered me.

First, Michelle’s segment. Bill started off by plugging her new book and then commenting on the fact that today is the RNCC’s day of Compassion (which he had mentioned in his Talking Points Memo at the show’s opening). His stance was that this alleged Compassion is only good if the true meaning of Compassion is understood. Specifically, that Compassion is along the lines of the old adage about giving a person a fish or teaching them to catch fish on their own...and that the Left prefers giving fish away while the Right tends to teach people to fish. I agree. Unfortunately, I’m not sure that Bill and Michelle were on the same wavelength and I think it was Bill’s fault. Here’s a paraphrased version of what he said (since the transcript isn't yet available):

Bill: I’m pleased to have Michelle Malkin on our show tonight. Her new book, In Defense of Internment, is out and, Michelle, that doesn’t sound very compassionate. You’re not suggesting that we go around and lock up all Muslims, are you?


Michelle: No, no, no, Bill. Of course not…and I make that clear in my book. However, I do have to say that I disagree with this whole day of Compassion. I think we need to get tougher in this country and show that world that we mean business.

See the problem? Bill is referring to Compassion in the sense that we need to get tougher…but, with his question, he forced Michelle to either defend the definition of Compassion that he had just argued against, or to argue against Compassion itself. I don't know whether or not this was done on purpose...but it's not the type of thing an experienced host should be doing.

As the conversation progressed Michelle managed to pull it out when Bill asked something to this effect (again, paraphrased):

Bill: Don’t you think that it’s time to get out of the mudslinging game? I mean these Swift Boat Vets, they’ve been really brutal. They’re not showing much Compassion, are they?

Michelle: Actually Bill, I think they’re showing Compassion to the Vietnam Vets who have felt insulted by John Kerry all these years.

Bill: Wow, what a great response. I thought I was going to stump you with that one. I have no comeback.

His interview with Michelle illustrates the first of two errors a host should never make. Bill went to the trouble of defining Compassion in his Talking Points Memo, and then he puts his guest in a position implying that she needs to defend the erroneous definition of Compassion he just disavowed.

All things considered I think Michelle did a great job and came off looking just fine.

Now…for the Terry McAuliffe segment. Let’s just get this out in the open: McAuliffe makes me want to vomit. I don’t mean that in a metaphorical or figurative sense. Listening to him makes me physically ill. Here’s a few examples of illustrating why he makes my want to spill my lunch on my shoes…

Bill asked Terry what he thought about the speeches given last night by Sen. McCain and Rudy Giuliani. Terry said Giuliani was too harsh and McCain was ok…blah, blah, blah. Then the conversation turned to Bush and his now infamous line that the War on Terror is quote-unquote unwinnable. I just happened to listen to Bush clarify that statement on Rush’s show today and I’ll tell you what…this is just another example of quoting out of context.

Bill, to his credit, asked Terry a number of salient questions…although while doing so he committed at least the second serious host-error in only the second segment, which I’ll get to shortly. First, though, Bill asked Terry if he was tired of the Gotcha game, referring to the Left jumping the unwinnable comment and the Right jumping on the sensitive War on Terror Kerry gaffe. Terry got really defensive and said it’s all “Politics.” I give him credit for candor…but negative points for being a slimebag and quoting out of context.

Then…as if to prove that he really does relish quoting out of context…Terry went on to say something to this effect:

Terry: Bush said the WoT is unwinnable. That’s just wrong, a Commander-in-Chief doesn’t say those things. I’ll tell you this, John Kerry will win the WoT.

Bill: He’ll win it? He’ll wipe them all out? Get every last one?

Terry: He’ll win it!

Bill: But there will always be Madrids, there will always be people strapping bombs on and blowing people up.

Terry: Well, there will always be small incidents…

Bill: Small?!

Terry: …yeah, small incidents. But I promise you, John Kerry will win the WoT.

Bill: But how can we win it? We're fighting a Movement, not a Country. How can we get them all?

Terry: John Kerry will win it. John Kerry will win it. John Kerry will win it. John Kerry will win it. John Kerry will win it.

Did anyone else catch the host-error? Bill kept on implying (and saying outright) that Bush was correct in the sense that we’re fighting a Movement and not a Country. Therefore, we will never see a surrender agreement and thereafter be able to say “We won.” The error that Bill is guilty of is that he assumed that he and Terry agreed on the conditions under which the WoT would be considered “Won.” Specifically, Bill neglected to pin Terry to the mat and make him admit how his definition of Winning the WoT differs from Bush's definition. The former is a slimy way of saying that we will have won when Kerry is in power and we say we've won (using the circular reasoning so favored by Democrats). The latter is a blatantly honest statement that we can never kill all the Terrorists. The part of the unwinnable quote that Terry left out was this part:

"I don't think you can win it," Bush replied on NBC's "Today" to the question: "Can we win" the war on terror. "But I think you can create conditions so that the -- those who use terror as a tool -- are less acceptable in parts of the world." (emphasis added)

Bush's approach is just exactly correct (although not well articulated in this particular quote). Here's what it boils down to:

We have gone after the Terrorists' money (freezing assets).
We have gone after their safe havens (Afghanistan and Iraq).
And now we're going after their recruiting grounds by transforming the 14th century dictatorships of Afghanistan and Iraq into functioning representative governments.

Bill could have forced Terry admit that he was using Bush's words unfairly by saying, “Ok Terry, you say JF-ingK can win the WoT? Would you please tell me how we’ll know that we’ve won?” Instead he let Terry get away with this crap, allowing him to plainly state that Kerry will win, although we don’t know how long it’ll take…but we will win under Kerry. What a load. Did I mention that McAuliffe makes me want to puke?

In the end, Bush is right and the McAuliff's of the world are just grubbing in the dirt. They've got their heads buried so far up their...I mean, they've got their heads buried so deep in the sand that they wouldn't know a Bad Terrorists from a Dead Terrorist.

Thank God that Bush can identify the difference, and that he knows how to transform the former into the latter.
|

Starting with the beheading of Nick Berg we have seen international attention riveted by hostage taking. Since then, we have seen far too many innocent people from many countries taken hostage with demands from the hostage-takers that a country withdraw support for the US's efforts to create a free Iraq. Now we seen a new development.

This story from The Australian (via The Command Post) highlights a variation on the hostage theme, and (even more significantly) the country being ransomed with two of its citizens' lives is none other than France. It seems that opposing the Great Satan at every turn is not enough to make the Terrorists happy:

The group has demanded that France rescind a controversial law due to go into effect this week banning the wearing of Muslim headscarves and other outwards signs of religious affiliation in French public schools.

So far, it appears that the French government is going to stand up to these scumbags:

French officials have asserted that the law will stand.

I, for one, will withhold my judgment of the French-backbone on this one until the situation has been resolved for better or worse.

As for the law itself, I think it is patently stupid and almost totally indefensible. To say that anyone should be prohibited from wearing religious garb (so long as it does not interfere with real and serious security concerns, etc.) is outrageous.

I also find the fact that France has been forced into creating such a law to be at least marginally humorous. They seem so deadest on purging religion from all aspects of public life that they have not been essentially forced to discriminate not only against Christians and Jews, but now also against the favorite religion of the Left, Islam. Irony at its best.
|

I'm back and ready for some politics =). Before getting to it, let me just say that the Outer Banks are great. It's hard to argue with sand, ocean and perfect weather. The only trick is to plan your vacation in between major hurricanes =).

All right, back to 'work.' The RNCC has gotten started, and I would like to remind you of a little prediction I made not too long ago. I predicted that the scene in NYC would be quite different from what we saw in Boston during the Democrat's Convention.

Not a full day into the Convention, and already it starts:

Protesters' Encounters With Delegates on the Town Turn Ugly

So I'll ask again:

Which group, the Conservatives or the Liberals, really practices dirty and divisive politics?
|

It's OBX time so I'll be gone until next Sunday. Not to fear, I promise to return reenergized and ready to roll into the elections. In my absence, be sure to check out this week's installment (graciously compiled by Chrenkoff) at Homespun Bloggers (should be up by Sunday-ish).
|

Looks like the nuts in Iran are attempting to borrow a bit of American stratergery:

DOHA (AFP) - Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned that Iran might launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.

"We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly," Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.

I have yet to see it, but I am absolutely certain that this statement will be used by the Left in an attempt to 'show' that the Bush Doctrine has backfired. The argument will seem convincing on the surface...but only if you make one assumption at the outset.

In order to see Iranian preemption as equivalent to our own policy of the same, it is necessary to see the Iranian government as morally equal to the US government.

If you see the world through those lenses, then Iran has as much right to act in a preemptive manner as do we. However, let me point out two things...

First, the Iranian making this statement does not even understand the concept of preemption. Consider the following quotes from the article:

Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly," Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.
...
The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.
...
We will consider any strike against our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we will retaliate with all our strength.
...
"If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about Dimona nuclear center, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this move," General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr warned.

None of those quotes state or even imply that Iran is considering preemptive action. Each one indicates that they are ready and willing to respond to a direct attack.

More importantly...

Second, Iran is not morally equivalent to the US. This is a simple statement and it is True. Consider these accounts:

Ayatollah warns Iran protesters
Heavy Security Puts Iran Protesters On Back Foot
Student protesters held in Iran
Hundreds jailed as Iran rounds up protesters
PROTESTERS CLASHED WITH POLICE AT THE START OF IRAN MEETING
Iran: Courts Urged To Give Protesters Death Penalty

Anyone still want to argue that Iran should have any standing in the Free World? Yes? Then how about these:

Iran women's bill rejected
Iran women's rights reform under conservative fire
Iran Women Get Equal Inheritance Rights Great...but...
Women's Gains at Risk in Iran's New Parliament

Need I go on? Anyone still want to argue that Iran should have any standing in the Free World?

The Iranian government is in no way morally equal to the United States' Government and, therefore, they do not have the right to preemption that we claim for ourselves.
|

Seriously, I would be embarrassed if Kerry were my guy. Between the salute and his serious penchant for lying through his botoxed lips it's hard to be imagine the level of Bush hatred required to allow a person to back this guy.

As if all the lying weren't bad enough, now both he and Edwards have stolen lines from the Bush/Cheney campaign. I caught this on CNN Headline News this morning (link via The Command Post):

"Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on."

How funny is that? Since I've already addressed the differences in war records to some extent here, I won't do it again. However, I will point out yet again that President Bush has not made Vietnam an issue in this campaign to any degree whatsoever. While this does not make the time period completely out of bounds for his political opponents...it does mean any attacks against him on this topic are at least in poor taste.

Kerry, on the other hand apparently has some weird form of Tourettes Syndrome where every time he opens his mouth the forthcoming statement starts with: When I was (optional wounded reference) in Vietnam...

So, as so many have pointed out, it was Kerry himself who opened this particular bottle. The only problem is that what he thought was a bottle was actually a whole case of Whop-Arse cans...and the Right has decided to open them up and see if maybe the Truth is in there somewhere.

Be careful what you ask for, Mr. Kerry. You might just get it.

More:

My point exactly. (via Twenty First Century Republican)

Yet More:

Oh how sweet!

Hehe.
|

What does this prove? Easy enough, it proves Zell Miller is a Democrat.

The thing that Kerry's little press release doesn't bother to mention is that just about every virtue and moral that Zell outlines in his book (A National Party No More) finds its antithesis in the wavering BS of Mr. Kerry.
|

Absolutely =)
|

Great, as usual. Try a quick injection of that pesky bugger reality into the collapsed, needle-marked vein of some Liberal war stories:

Tom Harkin, Crazed Moron, was shouting this week that Dick Cheney is a "coward," evidently for not fighting in Vietnam like Harkin. Except Harkin didn't fight in Vietnam either! The last time Harkin was bragging about his Vietnam service was in 1984 when he told David Broder of The Washington Post: "I spent five years as a Navy pilot, starting in November of 1962. One year was in Vietnam. I was flying F-4s and F-8s on combat air patrols and photo-reconnaissance support missions."

Sen. Barry Goldwater -- not the Post -- checked with the Defense Department and soon Harkin was forced to admit he had never been in combat in Vietnam, but was based in Japan during the war, ferrying damaged planes from the Saigon airport to Japan for repairs. Oops!

There is plenty more where that came from. Definitely don't miss this one!
|

How far into this article do you have to read before you see evidence that does not support Kerry's position? There are 22 paragraphs, take a guess.

Here's the article title and subtitle:

Military records counter a Kerry critic

Fellow skipper's citation refers to enemy fire

Here's how the story opens:

WASHINGTON - Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics [Larry Thurlow], who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.

What a jerk! You mean to tell me that "one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics" has a given statements that directly contradict his own war records. I'm appalled!

But wait! Here's what paragraphs 8 and 9 (of 22) contain:

"It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case," Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."

Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't under fire," he said. He speculated that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation. (emphasis added)

Paragraph 13:

For much of the episode, Kerry was not in a position to know firsthand what was happening on Thurlow's boat, as Kerry's boat had sped down the river after the mine exploded under another boat. He later returned to provide assistance to the stricken boat.

Paragraph 16:

Two other Swift boat skippers who were direct participants in the March 13, 1969, mine explosion on the Bay Hap, Jack Chenoweth and Richard Pees, have said they do not remember coming under "enemy fire." A fourth commander, Don Droz, who was one of Kerry's closest friends in Vietnam, was killed in action a month later.

So let's recap. We have the written record of Mr. Thurlow's medal citation that states the group was under fire that day. Additionally, Kerry's story is supported by a SF guy he pulled out of the river.

On the other hand, it might have been Kerry who wrote Mr. Thurlow's citation in addition to his own (although the article quotes some Kerry people who claim there is no "documentary evidence to settle the argument." I wonder if Kerry could misremember how this all went down and then fill us in as the story evolves). Also there are multiple personal accounts of multiple Swift Boat crewmembers contradicting Kerry's story.

Decide for yourself.

Update:

More Lies? A SEAL weighs in. (via: Hounds of Gotterdammerung)

Update 2:

Drudge has some info. Funny how the anti-Swift-Boat-Vets-Media has managed to find room on the front page for their attacks...but there was essentially no coverage of the Swifties until it become painfully obvious that the story wasn't going to die (thanks to Rush, Hannity and the Blogosphere).
|

Answer: Just let them talk.
|

Now it's from Doug Bereuter (R-NE). I love the quote:

"I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action," Bereuter wrote in a letter to constituents in the final days of his congressional career.

Retrospectively and in the final days of his congressional career. Ah yes, there's nothing quite like hindsight and a lack of accountability to transform mine into men.

You might also note what he has been involved with in the House. Specifically the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. So, he saw much the same intel that Bush had available (not to mention Clinton, Kerry, Blair, Putin, Schroeder and Chirac, etc., etc.) and he came to the conclusion that our President should be authorized to order the use of force against Iraq. Now, in the waning days of his congressional career he wants to toss in his two cents. Makes me think he's either a coward (because he didn't make his opposition clear when his misgivings developed) or there are some sour grapes at work here.

Either way I, for one, am sick and tired of the intentionally-uninformed, 20/20 hindsight bashing of President Bush and the fact that he did what was necessary.
|

I was at a bookstore yesterday and I saw the most beautiful sight. There, right in the front of the store, were three waist-high piles of My Life, just waiting for some unsuspecting hermit who's been living in a cave for a few decades to come by and pick one up. Oh how it warms my VRWC heart.

Drudge is also reporting that Bill isn't going to outsell his lovely wife-type-person. I'm sort of conflicted about this tid bit of info. If I had my way, neither one would out sell the other and both books would go down in (metaphorical (as I do not support non-metaphorical book burning)) flames.

Sadly, Tommy Frank's book, American Solider isn't doing all that well. I considered buying it while at the store yesterday, but I've been indulding my book buying sickness too much of late (can you say I need National Healtcare?)...but maybe I'll go pick up (and pay for) a copy. I like the guy, he's served his country well and his story deserves to be told.
|

...and Kerry has no one to blame but himself.

Tom the Redhunter has a good post pulling together some evidence that the one Swifty who does support Kerry may have either never actually served under his command, or if he did they may have been in combat together for a few days at most. Check out his links and decide for yourself.

The bottom line is that Kerry is a lying scumbag who wouldn't have a single political leg to stand on if it weren't for the Media propping him up day in and day out.
|

I am posting this because I hope that someone will be able to help me out. If you have any information on this topic I would greatly appreciate it if you'd get in touch with me.

There has been a lot of talk (from the Left) about the 7 minutes that President Bush spent in that Florida classroom after he was told that the second WTC tower had been hit. When I first heard this story (which is true) I thought there might be a little more to it than, say, Michael Moore might reveal. I was happy to see at least a possible/reasonable/logical explanation linked to at The Unmentionables. From there the link trajectory is:

NE Republican --> PoliPundit --> Tim Blair's comments section

...and there the linking stops. However, that particular commenter directs us (via text only) to little green footballs. At that point, it took a little searching, but I found a post's comments that occurred at approximately the right time and is on the topic of interest. Unfortunately, while I was able to find Reaganite, I could not find any explanation of the 7 minutes by the alleged original source (Reaganite).

I have emailed both CJ of The Unmentionables and the email provided for the commenter 'Reaganite' and have yet to receive a reply.

Again, if anyone has any info that might shed some light on this issue let me know. You will be properly compensated (-cough-I'll give you credit here-cough-).

Update:

Alex Harris (of Wandering Mind fame and a Homespun Blogger) sent me an email with a link to this press release. Certainly this lends some support to the Secret Service explanation, although I'd be more comfortable with a news story (or a few of them) with some first-hand accounts. We'll see what else comes to the surface as we continue to strive to unearth what the Media won't.

Update 2:

I know, I know. What, exactly, is the point of even discussing this. As you can see here our guys were on the move fast. The only reason I bring this issue up is that I'm sick and tired of the old Left-unfairly-attacks-W-and-W-remains-above-the-fray-and-does-defend-himself thing.

Yesterday I emailed Reaganite who has posted quite a bit at LGF. While there are obviously things he cannot talk about, but he did tell me that although he did not write the words of this comment, the information is factual.

So in conclusion I would just like to say: Hey Michael Moore (and everyone who agrees with the windbag), please get your facts straight before you go accusing the President of the United States of America of being indecisive and...Shut Up Already!
|

Lately I've been trying to provide my readers (and myself) with stories from the front lines that cut through the BS (for a few see 1, 2, 3, 4).

Today I've got a story (via AM Siriano) that provides some insight into what life is like just behind the front lines...which in today's style of conflict is not behind anything at all. And if you ever needed a reason why America will always win, this short piece will give you plenty of that too...gotta love the Marines.

(And if you still need more try this (specifically the Ollie North interview)).
|

I love stories about the real George Bush. The public's perception of his personality and intelligence has been shaped by an unfriendly Media to the point that the truth gets more than clouded...it gets lost. A while back I linked to a great story about the human side of the President. And who can forget the heart-warming picture of W comforting a young girl who had lost her mother in the 9/11 attacks?

Now NRO has a piece that should shed some light on our President's intelligence...and it's far from what the Left and their willing accomplices in the Media would have you think. Check out the article and ask yourself if you agree with USA Today, or with people who actually know Mr. Bush.

(And thanks to my Dad for the heads up on the NRO piece. I think he reads more than I do these days =))

|

American War Monger recounts for us his experiences on 9/11 and the days immediately following (via Redhunter). Here's a bit:

At the time I thought it was sort of funny but after about an hour or two I started thinking about the guy and how we sounded and realized that yes, we probably would knock him out of the air if he even thought the words "Allah akbar" (god is great). This is not anything against Muslims, they have every right to be here and be free, just like non-Muslims, if not more. It was just as though a small dog came up to the rotweiler on the porch and took a chunk out of his soft underbelly. We were on the complete defensive and wanting something, anything to tear limb from limb.

While reading this post, recall the criticism of the President by the Left (specifically Michael Moore) that Bush spent something like 7 minutes of inaction after the second plane hit. This ship (a freaking war ship) was underway in 2 hours. And, let's not forget that some other so-called leaders spent far longer unable to think (40 minutes by the Waffler's own admission).
|

Who da thunk it?

Bush announces major troop realignment

Kerry camp questions timing of announcement

I just have to laugh. It's all I can do. If President Bush decided to eat a Philly Cheesesteak sandwich the Left would question the political timing (considering the hilarious pictures from the primaries). As Rush says, their playbook never changes.

It's a good thing the Media is on their side, otherwise it would be far too easy to win.

More:

Need more evidence? Check out the picture at NE Republican. Where would the Media's attention be if it were a picture of Bush? (Of course, there would most likely be many less "unfit" opinions...but that's a different issue.)
|

On Saturday CBFTW posted about the real face of war. Not the firefights, the courage and all that. He wrote about the boredom. He also mentioned that a number of commenters have suggested that he either needs to spice things up or stop writing because he's selling out to the man or some damn thing. Read the post (and the rest for that matter) and leave him a comment in support of his efforts. This solider is providing a service that is literally irreplaceable and I, for one, hope that he keeps it up. Words of encouragement can only help.
|

Vodkapundit has a great post on the evolving nature of American non-Isolationism with respect (and a bit of well-deserved disrespect) to Europe (by which he and I both mean two small (geographically and 'minded'), lazy, socalist countries:

So France and Germany can go on being just as bratty as they want, but the US is not about to retreat from the world stage. Far from being the cause of some resurgent US isolationism, Franco-German failure to bear their burden in the new War will only enhance the US presence on the world stage, while minimizing their own. That said, re-read the two paragraphs above this one.

I agree. Americas will not simply draw back into our collective shell as we did during the 90's (at least not if W stays in charge) for the simple reason that we have seen that 'defense' proven to be indefensible in a most horrifying way. Simply put, the two great oceans are no barrier against the enemies of the 21st century.

So we will continue to use our military and economic power to shape the world as we see fit. With any luck we will choose leaders who have the vision and the guts to both see what is necessary and right, and actually do it.

And while we're at it, the rest of the world has a choice: You're either on the side of freedom and peace through superior firepower (that would be us), or your with the bad guys.
|

...and Political Correctness may have killed the Columbia Astronauts:

Foam falling off the tank is nothing new. It was first documented in 1981. But it greatly increased in 1997. You see, in 1997 NASA was forced by environmental regulations to use a different method to apply the foam to the tank. The old method used Freon and we all know the environmentalists consider it the worst substance ever created. (except maybe DDT) So NASA was forced to use a different method than the engineers had originally called for.

This is not a new story (although I apparently missed it originally). I hope that people will learn a lesson from this terrible tragedy: Political Correctness can kill. When we give in to our fears and emotions (i.e., save the baby seals at all costs), we endanger real human lives.
|

All I can say is...well, I'm actually speechless. I think we can all sleep a little better tonight knowing that Hong Kong's finest are on the job.
|

The Command Post has begun an effort to bring together the collective information-disseminating power of the blogosphere by coordinating links to small, local charities. The effort is called Strengthen The Good. Here's the basic idea:

Create a network of bloggers who raise awareness of “micro charities”—charitable opportunities that are simple, personal, non-bureaucratic, and inspiring. Charitable opportunities where someone can feel great about giving $1, or even just from reading the story of the charity, it’s sponsors, and it’s beneficiaries.

I think this is a great idea and I, for one, and more than happy to take part. I realize that some people might very well want to keep their charitable donations close to home, making them less than likely to donate to a charity 2,000 miles from home. My goal in taking part in this effort is to raise awareness of small charities because I think they do the best work. Whether or not you wish to contribute to the particular charity of the month, I hope that my post will inspire people to give somewhere.

Remember, this country would be a lot better off if every individual citizen took it upon him/herself to support his/her neighbors. The government tries, but it fails for both practical and moral reasons. The government fails practically because the it is the essence of an inefficient bureaucracy and morally because, by supporting those in need, it allows us, the individual Citizens of the United States of America, to forget our ties to those around us.

So please, whether or not you give to any charity whose link appears on this or any other blog, take a look at your checking account and consider whether or not there might be a few extra dollars in there destined for a good cause.
|

Arthur has posted yet another installment of Good News From Iraq. Read it and get the side of the news that the Media refuses to show us.
|

...not!

First up:

August 15, 2004 -- With little fanfare, the Federal Reserve will begin transferring the nation's money supply over an Internet-based system this month — a move critics say could open the U.S.'s banking system to cyber threats.

Duh. You don't say. This is about as good an idea as electronic voting systems.

Second:

EU orders health ID cards for all tourists

Britons traveling in Europe are to be issued with a new card to give them swift access to the health service when they fall ill. The technology for issuing the cards - which could be a forerunner to more widespread identity cards - is being prepared by the Department of Health, on instructions from the EU Commission, which wants a standard card in use across all 25 EU states.

The day Europe tries pulling this kind of crap with US Citizens is the day they lose any future tourism $$ from my wallet. A variation of President Heston's famous line comes to mind...and the language is not fit to publish =).
|

Wandering Mind has a fabulous post on Anti-Americanism (the post is also featured at Homespun's Best Of round up). I think that his conversation with his European friend really gets to the heart of the matter:

He went on to explain. Europeans, he said, dislike Americans because, in a short period of human history, went on to surpass Europe in being the center of global influence. What was even worse, was that America was built by European 'garbage' as he put it.

That's exactly right. It was the unwanted, huddled masses of humanity who left a miserable existence in Europe (risking everything) for the chance to build a new and better life in America. And in only a few short years (around 200, to ballpark it) they did exactly that.

What we really have in Europe these days is a bunch of people who dislike/hate us just for being what all human beings want to be: free to choose our own destiny...and they're pissed because we're so damn successful. Sad really...and I think Alex is exactly right:

...my host asked if I understood why Europeans were so anti American. At first, I was very much on the defensive-- at first. Maybe it was because of the wine and thus being less inhibited, I then went on to reply that when you get right down to it, most Americans don't really care...

Losers sit around whining about why they're losing.

Winners shut up and win.
|

On Wednesday I posted about a news story reporting that President Bush thought a National Sales Tax might be a good idea. The post generated a few comments that have given me pause and caused me to reconsider my stance somewhat.

As pointed out in multiple places (Cato, My Little Corner and a good comparison here) there are a number of advantages to a National Sales Tax, and I'll let you visit the links to see the positives.

There are, it seems, a few potential pitfalls that need to be addressed.

First, sales taxes are inherently regressive. AH had this to say about my concern:

Yes, the poor guy may spend more on gas-- but the rich guy spends MORE, period!

Whether its travel by plane and hotels, or jewellery or any other luxury item, there is one thing you can be sure of-- he'll spend MORE money than the poor guy-- and this pay more taxes.

I think that my point was missed (as commonly happens with this particular topic...I need to get better at this one). The point here is that a 15% sales tax will take a higher percentage of a poor guy's paycheck than it will from a rich guy's paycheck and is, hence, regressive (this concern is addressed by Cato...to some extent).

Second, the Cato analysis suggests that:

There would be a universal rebate for every household that would in effect exempt all consumption up to the poverty level.

This sounds good in theory, but I have a question: How? Would I have to save receipts from every single purchase I make? Credit/debit card records don't cut it because then everyone would just deal in cash (and/or Big Brother potential would be truly scary). I haven't seen this addressed and it seems that it's just assumed that this would be easy...maybe I'm just missing something. [I know, I know, this was pretty stupid. However, if this tax bill were ever passed I just don't believe that all Americans are going to get a check from the government to offset 'subsistance' level purchases. I would expect that the Left would manage to get some means testing or some other crap pinned onto the bill so the 'wealthiest 1%' don't get anything back...but maybe that's just me.]

Third, define Retail. I know this may seem pretty obvious, boarding on the absurd. All the pro-NST links above suggest that only final-product/retail items (and services?) be taxed. So a machine needed by a factory to make a car would not be taxed when bought. Ok. What about buying things in bulk? BJ's and Sam's Club would certainly be happy as they are not considered retail (although I suppose the law could be written to include them). This brings up the possibility that lobbying groups might find loopholes by getting lawmakers to define various and sundry products as not retail, thereby exempting them from being taxed, to some extent diluting the argument that NST would rid us of the avoiding taxes problem.

Finally, with all the excitement generated by the reduction of production costs, it should be pointed out that a NST would increase the cost of actually buying those products. It has been said that the power to consume is the power to produce. In other words, you can't buy something if you don't first obtain $$...and you obtain $$ by producing something that didn't exist previously. So, by making it easier to produce, you also make it easier to consume. However, taxes always act as a disincentive to whatever is being taxed...and so we have to assume that taxing the sale of products (and services?) will, to some extent, inhibit sales. To what extent this is a measurable effect would depend on the numbers involved. Regardless, this is an issue.

I realize that I am a layperson when it comes to economic issues. However, I would sincerely like to see answers/solutions to these concerns. On the topic I have a totally open mind and would love to hear your comments.

More:

The Baby Seal Club has some thoughts on this topic as well.
|

As you can see, I have rearranged my blogroll, removed a few links and added some new ones. I hope this setup makes the roll more user friendly.

Make sure to check out the Homespun Bloggers roll. It's constantly updated to keep the most recently published blogs at the top.
|

Up

Bush's approval rating (via The Command Post):

The current poll also shows that 51% of Americans approve, and 46% disapprove, of the way Bush is handling his job as president. For the last three months, Bush has averaged 48% approval and 49% disapproval. The current figures are a slight improvement for Bush and represent the first time he has been above the symbolically important 50% level since mid-April.

[Also check out Neophyte Pundit for some nice looking polling data. Ah, how it warms the heart.]

Down

Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia:

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared--seared--in me."

[...]

Kerry has turned to author Brinkley for a "modification" after it was exposed that Kerry was not in Cambodia during Christmas of 1968, as he once claimed from the Senate floor.

The Brinkley piece for the NEW YORKER will now say that Kerry was not in Cambodia during Christmas, but rather in January, publishing sources tell DRUDGE.

Was he lying? I guess it all depends on your defintion of a memory being "seared--seared--in me."

Why am I having trouble believing this latest "modification"?
|

Although I suppose I qualify as a bonafide political junkie, I'm getting pretty worn out by the never-ending saga that is the Presidential election season. So...I thought I'd offer a few links to easy (and relieve) any of you out there who have had it right up to here with all the back and forth of politics.

Space.com
Really cool stuff about, well, Space. Check out the entertaining story about some crazy Russians who are about to find evidence that the huge (apparent) explosion of 1908 (Siberia) was actually caused by an alien spaceship (featured by Drudge today...I know, I know).

Animal House
There's nothing quite like classic to ease an overworked mind. Make sure to scroll all the way down to the audio files. Oh the memories =).

Get Fuzzy
Darby Conley continues to prove he can fill the rather large whole in my comics world left by the retirement of Bill Watterson (Calvin and Hobbes, of course). This is honestly the funniest comic going today (with Dilbert and Non Sequitur each running a close second).

Nellie McKay
She's odd, I'll give you that. But you've got to give her points for originality and for putting some music out there for free.

I hope you've enjoyed this short and completely disjointed list of things that keep me occupied when I really need to be just that.
|

I was just directed to Keystone Military News by Mamamontezz's Mental Rompus Room. I agree with Mamamontezz, this is a great site and deserves more attention. So, I have added them under the heading Show Your Support to the right.

Check out the Keystone Military News, lend them a word of support or maybe ever find a way to make our soliders' lives a little better. It's the least we can do.
|

The Command Post has an interesting post from a guy named Mark A. Goldman who's running for the House Seat currently occupied by Jim McDermott (D-WA). While I wholeheartedly disagree with his views on the Bush Admin, I do think that the Internet has the potential to breath yet more new life into what has become a relatively stagnant political scene and I'm glad to see it.

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it. -Voltaire*
|

Vodkapundit has some interesting info on Kerry's relationship with his superiors in Vietnam. Just a bit more wood on the fire.

Also check out the first comment. I agree with the subsequent commenters, Frank needs a blog.

More:

Ken has some very interesting info:

A former senior Virginia Air National Guard commander, who served with George W. Bush in the Texas Air Guard, says Bush volunteered for Vietnam combat service but was turned down because he did not have the required flight experience.

William J. Campenni, a retired Air Guard colonel, also said absences such as Bush's from his unit were common in the Air Guard during the period of Bush's service and still are.

Compare with...

Senator John Kerry ... tried to defer his military service for a year, according to a newly rediscovered article in a Harvard University newspaper.

....He wrote to his local recruitment board seeking permission to spend a further 12 months studying in Paris, after completing his degree course at Yale University in the mid-1960s.

Wouldn't get that from the front page of the NYT, now woudl you?

More:

Glenn has a good post summarizing the recent recantations and other BS coming out of the Kerry HQ about that Christmas that was just "seared-seared" in his memory. What a load.
|

Michelle has a great column on internment during WWII. Sadly, I was unaware of this before reading the column (just goes to show you...):

In fact, enemy aliens from all Axis nations -- not just Japan -- were subjected to curfews, registration, censorship, exclusion from sensitive areas and internment during World War II. Enemy aliens from Europe and their family members (many of whom were U.S.-born) made up nearly half of the total internee population.

Did you learn that in high school?
|

A few days ago I ran into the most amazing solider blog called MY WAR - Fear And Loathing In Iraq. As I said previously, this has got to be the most straight forward, no-holes-barred, BS-free blog I have ever seen. His most recent post is about some attention that his blog has recently gotten him:

The Battalion Commander AND the Col wants to see me?! All of this reminds me of the classic 80's movie, Pump Up The Volume, where the main character is in high school, and who is kind of a loner, listens to punk and skates, and does that underground radio station, which nobody at his school knows about, and it gets bigger and bigger until finally he gets caught and busted.

I'll save you any worry...he didn't get busted. However, he closes the post with:

This might be my last entry, I haven't decided yet to end this, or continue this. I don't know what to make of all this yet.

Mine was the 194th comment (just after his wife, as a matter of fact...and there are 202 as of right now) and I let him know that I hope he will keep on giving us his amazingly honest insight into what it's really like in Iraq.

Help keep this talented young man motivated by letting him know that he is appreciated. Leave a comment and help keep this conduit of Truth open!
|

I'm all for overhauling the tax code. It's a bohemith that needs some serious trimming and simplification. However, I do not think this is a good idea:

NICEVILLE, Fla. (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) said on Tuesday that abolishing the U.S. income tax system and replacing it with a national sales tax was an idea worth considering.

Having everyone pay the same percentage relative to income is one thing, but to have everyone paying the same absolute percentage seems like a horrible idea. To have, say, John Kerry-Heinz paying 7% on a bottle of milk is not the same as having some guy making $10,000/year paying 7% on a bottle of milk. Bad idea.
|

Maybe:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 — Citing concerns about terrorists crossing the nation's land borders, the Department of Homeland Security announced today that it planned to give border patrol agents sweeping new powers to deport illegal aliens from the frontiers abutting Mexico and Canada without providing the aliens the opportunity to make their case before an immigration judge.

I don't quite know what to make of this since it seems to have just popped out of nowhere. After all the crap about accomodating illegal immigrants, I find it somewhat difficult to swallow this whole. However, this move (if it's actually followed through on) goes somewhat against the general tact that Bush as taken with respect to illegal immigration. I just hope it's not an election year thing but rather that this represents an honest effort to keep the bad guys out of our country.
|

Towards the end of the DNCC, I blogged briefly about some protesters. There were few protesters, few arrests and almost no disturbance (at least in part due to the Free Speech Zones).

Additionally, recall exactly who was protesting and causing disruptions. I'll give you a hint...it was not Conservative groups (although some were there, I never saw any reports of them causing problems).

Compare that to what is likely to occur during the Republican Convention in NYC. We've got a new play coming out (although it's hard to say where) called "I'm Gonna...the President!" A Federal Offense [truncated so that phrase doesn't appear on my site] (via Drudge).

Now Rush has mentioned a few fun groups that are likely to make an appearance during the RNCC, including (and the Village Voice has a more complete list):

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence flying in from San Francisco It's a bunch of males, bunch of gay guys dressed up as nuns. You've got Dykes on Bikes going to be rolling into town.

I think he takes the right approach to all this:

Let 'em! You know, let America see -- (laughing) -- the Kerry supporters at the Republican convention. We could call this the kook All-Star game. I mean, they've got all the All-Stars of all the freaks.

But let's not forget the (likely) contrast between the restraint shown by Conservative groups at the DNCC and what I'm predicting to be raucous, and perhaps even destructive, protests etc. at the RNCC. And when all this comes true, ask yourself this question:

Which group, the Conservatives or the Liberals, really practices dirty and divisive politics?
|

Drudge has one of is patented reports claiming (in part):

Three members of Congress are alleging that Teresa Heinz Kerry's foundation, The Heinz Endowments, has given millions to radical groups, some linked to terrorists, and located Heinz factories overseas.

The Heinz Endowments and the Kerry-Edwards campaign are categorically denying these claims and call the allegations "bogus."

Aside from politics, I don't see the problem with outsourcing their factories. The knee-jerk reaction to lie is, however, significant and predictable (did they really lie...it appears so).

As for the funding of groups with ties to terrorists, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt...but only so far. It's not hard to imagine a situation wherein a large corporation (or Endowment) gives money to a group in good faith, only to find out later that the group is somehow tied to terrorists. The question I have is: When it became clear that a given group was in bed with the bad guys, what did The Heinz Endowments do?
|

Well, the attacks from the Left keep on coming. Now these jerks are claiming that the Vets are violating CFR by accepting 'soft money' (via The Command Post):

In the complaint to the Federal Election Commission, the watchdog groups argued that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth should have used only limited contributions from individuals known as hard money on the ad and should disclose its donations and spending in reports to the FEC.

"We this think is open and shut, that the only purpose of this group is to influence the presidential election," said Fred Wertheimer, head of Democracy 21.

Mike Russell, a spokesman for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, said the ad is legal because it does not tell viewers which candidate they should vote for in the presidential race.

First off, let me just say that I am disgusted by the fact that we have, in America, gotten to the point where someone can say the only purpose of this group is to influence the presidential election and then conclude that the group's actions are illegal. What the hell is going on here? People complain about the Patriot Act, please! Let's try CFR and see if it fits in the right Censorship spots.

Totally aside from the underlying Constitutional issues, I am further disgusted by the fact that the Left has decided to do what they can to attack and silence a group of War Veterans! And here I thought they had seen the light with all the swooning over Kerry's 4.5 months in Vietnam. Guess not, huh?

This just goes to further prove (and by now we are well beyond the shadow of any doubt) that the Left is disingenuous and shallow. All they want is Power, and they will stop at nothing, sacrifice anyone and smear any group with as large a brush as necessary if it will further their agenda. No wonder politics continues to be nasty. Any normal person should be nearly incapable of containing his or her righteous rage. So I say: Let Loose!

More:

The Bear has some good thoughts:

Up until now, Kerry has gotten a pass on his Vietnam time: the general impression has been "He talks about it too much, but he was some kind of war hero back in Vietnam". Now, there's an alternate perspective: "Not only does he talk about it too much, but he's actually a liar." From the 10,000 foot view of the average voter, the Swifties don't have to prove their case in a court of law for Kerry to take damage: they just have to throw a bit of doubt onto the lily-white image he's portrayed thus far. In that, they've already succeeded.

Here's hoping.

Yet More:

Some more interesting facts of which I was unaware over at mypetjawa (and note that I've added him to the blogroll):

Wait a second, let me get this straight, the main defender of Kerry's 'band of brothers', the man who viciously attacks the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth for not serving on John Kerry's boat, only served with him for a couple of days!!!!!!!! Are you kidding me? All the reports I had ever seen about this man was that John Kerry had saved his life--not that they only served together a couple of days.

Interesting, wouldn't you say?
|

The Glavin Opinion has a great post on an outstanding performance by Bill O'Reilly on Tim Russert's show. Give it a read, you won't be disappointed.
|

There is currently a worthy effort underway to send a few words of support to our troops overseas. I caught wind of this via an email from Tom the Redhunter. Leave a comment at this post and let the Troops know that they have the support of good old Americans (to the contrary of what the Media and MM types might like them to think).
|

Folks, it looks like Howie Dean has managed to pull CNBC's coveted 8pm Sunday spot from the super-duper double-secret ratings probation with a whopping 133,000 viewers as guest host for Tina Brown. While this is a sight better than Tina Brown had been doing, this is pretty sad. Isn't this the guy who energized the Democratic Base? I guess the 'grass roots' Lefties don't have TVs in their huts out in the woods. To be fair it could just be that people don't watch CNBC.
|

The Commons has a great guest commentary post on the ever contentious topic of the 2nd Amendment. Here's a teaser:

Further, as I pointed out in an earlier paragraph the police are not charged with protecting us as individuals, but the public as a whole. Therefore, we must take more of an active rule in our own protection. This means one must have at hand the tools to protect oneself and one’s family, and it is a personal choice as to how best to accomplish this. However, the most effective means available to people is the firearm. There are also many choices as to which firearm to use. For home defense there is the handgun and the shotgun. This is a choice I will leave up to the individual. An armed citizen is also less likely to have to use his weapon, because as this essay has pointed out, criminals are more likely to avoid a house where they suspect to find an armed citizen.

Read the whole thing. It's very reminencent of John Lott's work (he is cited) and The Swamp Fox does a great job of pulling together a number of sources with important information.

Read the whole thing.
|

Who's dividing America? Ace of Spades HQ has a great post, complete with the answer (via Cold Fury).
|

Well, it appears that the events of July 17, 2004 in Oshkosh, WI are still a bit of a mystery (my original post is here). The WGO has an update at their site concerning an apparent press release from the local police. As they did not provide a link (and Google is failing me) I am unable to access the full text of the release. Does anyone out there have more info?

Update:

Apparently, yes. Weapon of Mass Distraction has a recent post on this topic, as does Vox Popoli.
|

Well, it would appear that there is some funny business going on with the official Kerry/Edwards book (as I mentioned in the update to this post). Remember our old buddy Michael Kranish? He's the Boston Globe reporter who, in addition to be an 'objective' journalist, wrote a Kerry biography.

Well, it would appear that he did not stop at writing a biography. No, he also went on to write the official Kerry/Edwards campaign book...before he unwrote it, of course. Instapundit has done the world a service by saving a screen shot of the Amazon.com page in question here (permalink to post). Compare with exhibit B (Amazon's current page) here.

Humm...

Now what is going on here? How did the authorship get changed?

It is entirely possible that his was a simple mistake by Amazon.com. If so, I sure wish they'd set the record straight.

It is also possible that Kranish really did write the book, and the Kerry/Edwards campaign realized that this was a political time bomb and somehow managed to get the authorship changed.

Any other possibilities you can think of?

As for proof one way or the other...I would like to hear from Amazon as to who the authorship got changed.

Also, I would love to see any proof whatsoever that either John had anything to do with the writing of this book. Do they have notes, drafts, etc.?

I doubt any of this will be forthcoming but hey, a guy can dream.
|

This morning on CNN Headline News, I caught just a few sound bites of Bill Clinton being 'interviewed' by Jon Stewart of The Daily Show on Comedy Central. I can't seem to find a transcript at the moment, so we'll go from memory.

The two were discussing the 'attack ad' put out by Swift Boat Vets For Truth and Clinton said something to the effect: It's just ridiculous that anyone is attacking John Kerry's war record. George Bush and Dick Cheney are hawks today, but the both managed to avoid combat when their generation was being called.

Have I ever mentioned that Bill Clinton makes me want to vomit. I don't mean that in a metaphorical sense. He makes me physically ill.

Has anyone out there ever noticed that Bob Dole's right arm doesn't seem to get a lot of use? Do you know why? How is it possible that many people I ask have absolutely no idea what happened to his arm? Humm... Remember, he ran for President in '96. How is it that his arm never became an issue? Could it possibly be that he has the dignity to not use a war wound as a political toy? Could it be that Bill Clinton and his people were actively trying to keep war records out of the public discourse? Now I wonder why that would be?

Does anyone remember what Bill Clinton was doing while George W. Bush was flying fighter jets?

For that matter, does anyone know what George H. W. Bush was doing during WWII?

The point is that the Left only uses the military when it's convenient for them (i.e., when they have the jets) and they sicken me.
|

Hey, Lefties...were the heck are you on this one? Aren't you supposed to defend, to the death, a journalists 'right' to confidentiality with his/her sources? What about this latest case?

Court Holds Reporter in Contempt in Leak Case
Time Magazine's Cooper Threatened with Jail for Not Revealing Source

Since I'm not holding my breath for an answer on this one, I'll just go ahead and theorize that there is deafening silence from the Left because in this case the revelation of the source's identity could harm President Bush. And that's really the bottom line, isn't it? Anything that might harm Bush (and Anybody But Bush) trumps any sense of morals...or even consistency of one's well-established (and often irritating) convictions. Really quite sad.
|

Since I've blogged on this topic (here and here), I thought I'd provide a bit more info.

Fact Check.org has weighed in on the Swift Boat Vets For Truth vs. Kerry controversy. The short story is that they don't draw any definite conclusions.

They're probably correct in that it's difficult if not impossible to get to the bottom of this. However, I happen to think that the Truth is important considering that simple fact that Kerry has made his 4.5 months in Vietnam a major reason to vote for him.

Make of it what you will.
|

...alive and well in France. What a bunch of scumbags.
|

I caught this Alert on the radio today. Thank God.
|

What more can I say? Ken has caught the PhotoShop bug.
|

John Kerry (apparently) has answered a question with (now get this) an actual answer:

GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found.

Totally aside from the shock I felt upon reading a straight answer from Mr. F-ing Kerry-Heinz, I was also amazed to see this answer not at the top of the NYT's Op/Ed page deriding him for coming out in favor of just exactly what our President has constantly (and, might I add, consistently) defended.

How about this:

Speaking to reporters from the Powell's Landing on the rim of the Grand Canyon above a mile-deep drop, Kerry also said reducing U.S. troops in Iraq significantly by next August was "an appropriate goal."

"My goal, my diplomacy, my statesmanship is to get our troops reduced in number and I believe if you do the statesmanship properly, I believe if you do the kind of alliance building that is available to us, that it's appropriate to have a goal of reducing the troops over that period of time," he said.

I have a serious problem with this statement. Simply put, the goal of our diplomacy should, and must, be a stable, safe, free and democratic Iraq. All other concerns in that area of the world must be subordinate to that one. For Kerry-Heinz to say that his goal, diplomacy and statesmanship are to reduce US troops in Iraq is not only stupid, it's dangerous (although it's technically impossible for his diplomacy and statesmanship to be anything...and they talk about Bush not knowing how to use the English language)).

I guess the message is coming through loud and clear to any even semi-regular readers of MuD&PHuD that I find Kerry's candidacy makes me extremely uncomfortable. I just find the guy to be completely without backbone. Any vote from him is a vote for the unknown given the simple fact that he waffles on essentially every issue.

So...the choice comes down to: On the Right hand a candidate who you know will follow through on his promises and, on the Left hand, one that you know will not.

As long as everyone understands those simple facts, we the American people will get exactly what we deserve...as usual.
|

It appears that the Bush Administration has agreed (see also CNN) (via email from insomnomaniac) to allow Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to monitor our November election.

At this point, I don't quite know what to make of this as I don't feel like I have all the information. The way I see it right now there are at least a three possible explanations:

1) The Bush Admin. might really just be in the process of fulfilling a decade-old commitment to allow this outside 'observation' of our elections,

2) This might be yet another attempt by the President to outflank the Left by (dare I say it) preemptively pulling the rug out from under the Democrats and depriving them of a potential campaign issue,

3) Bush wants to use this group as a means of providing support for whatever actions he deems necessary in the event that some (God Forbid) terrorists action successfully disrupts our elections.

#1, if true, is fine if we are truly under a legal obligation that we can't find a loophole out of.

#2 would be yet another iteration on the old Teddy-K-writes-the-Education-Bill political crap and I whole-heartedly disagree.

#3 is, perhaps, a legitimate purpose for such a group, but only if they can either be properly controlled or if their purposes always (and I mean always) coincide with our own (which, as Alphecca points out, can't possibly be the case).

Regardless, this development seems to carry with it the unacceptable risk of entangling our domestic affairs with international involvement. We are the model by which all other Democratic countries are measured...and I think it's pretty insulting that some people in our very government don't trust that we can ensure fair and honest elections.

Now that you've gotten some of my reaction, here's what Deb had to say:

But I will be damned if I will cast my precious vote for a guy who would allow anyone from France, Germany or Russia to "observe" our election process simply because a bunch of left-wingnuts from the Congress (and only 13 of them at that) demand it.

[...]

I'm going to go sulk, and right after that I'm going to start researching other candidates for President. I am LIVID, and you should be too.

First off, the "other candidates for President" are far worse than our current President.

Secondly, I am going to say something here that I will most likely draw ridicule from both sides of the aisle: I think that if #1 (above) is incorrect, President Bush might just have something up his sleeve. Whether it's something along the lines of #3 (i.e., these people can be controlled and used to our advantage) or something I haven't thought of, it has been my experience that when Bush makes a political move that seems really (or even really) stupid, if I just wait a while it often becomes clear that 1) he was right and 2) he's a way better politician that I would most likely be.

So I suppose the short post would look something like this:

I am disgusted by the prospect that other countries will be allowed to monitor our elections. I think Bush is being an absolute idiot with this move. However, it is entirely possible that I'm wrong and Bush knows what he's doing. In conclusion, I will vote for Bush regardless because to vote for Kerry is to vote against America and all for which She has always stood.

Update:

Here is Rush's take on the whole Kerry'ed up situation:

The key is that taking litigation or doing litigation, taking this kind of action, suing election results, has as its primary objective the de-legitimatization of the winner. It is to de-legitimate the winner of an election regardless the margin. So let's say that candidate A beats candidate B, and let's say it's a Senate race. It doesn't have to be presidential, could be anything. But let's say that Bush beats Kerry in Florida 54-46%. Pretend there's no Nader. But in some counties it's extremely closer than that, so the Democrats send in their lawyers and send in this human rights from Europe and they sue based on fraudulent vote counts or whatever. It's not going to change the outcome of the state and the Electoral Votes but they will be able to de-legitimate the winner by claiming the election was a fraud in these particular counties, and then, if they can get that much done, they can then assume and try to make the case that all the results in a particular state are thus fraudulent, and the whole point is to de-legitimize the winner, ladies and gentlemen, which is exactly what they've done to Bush this whole four years or 3-1/2 years of hate and irrational anger aimed at Bush has been built on the foundation that he's not a legitimate president. That's what they seek to do, I think, with each Republican victory in substantive races from here on out is to de-legitimize whoever wins. That's a direct result of the floodgates being opened by Gore taking these litigation actions after the 2000 election. Just keep a sharp eye on it. See if I'm not right.

|

Chrenkoff's EU Roundups are always entertaining and enlightening. Check 'im out.
|

The Best Of Homespun is up. Go check it out and see what keeps us up at night.
|

In Search of Utopia has taken issue with the Swift Boat issue...and even mentioned yours truly, hence this post.

ISOU references this article as proof that the Swift Boat Vets are full of crap. I caught a few minutes of Rush this afternoon, and I learned a few interesting things. First, George Elliott has apparently reaffirmed his statements and said that the article is simply inaccurate. Second, the 'journalist' who wrote this piece for the Boston Globe is also (coincidently enough) is in the process of writing the official book for the John&John campaign.

Drudge has a short piece that seems to confirm all of this.

As a semi-separate issue...ISOU has said that he will boycott any more discussion of the Swift Boat Vets issue. This is by no means fair or noble for a simple reason (as I've said before):

It was John Kerry himself who made his service in Vietnam a major campaign issue. To ignore it now is only to admit defeat.

So don't give up Dave, this is way too much fun =).

Update:

Daily Pundit has a post on this topic wherein he states that the official Kerry/Edwards book is being written by Michael Kranish. However, the link to Amazon reveals that the book is being listed as authored by Kerry and Edwards (which I have a hard time believing considering the campaign schedule) with no mention of Kranish. What's the deal?
|

Jeremy at pacetown has honored me by taking up my challenge to compile a list of John Kerry's promises. He's done a good job and found some interesting analysis done by National Taxpayer's Union Foundation that tells a slightly different story than you might hear from the campaign of John&John, Inc:

Based on Kerry's promise to "pay for" every program he has proposed, U.S. taxpayers would each face an average additional $2,206 in higher taxes during Kerry's first year in office, and a cumulative increased tax burden of $6,066 over his first term.

Humm...

Want more? Go check out his post.
|

Don't believe the Leftist hype. Read this personal account of meeting the President.

Waiting on the prez
|

MY WAR - Fear And Loathing In Iraq has an amazing, 1st hand, account of what it's like to be up to your eyeballs in bad guys (via Wizbang). This post is wide open, unabridged and uncensored. Read it and gain some pitifully inadequate understanding of what it is to be in combat*. Here is a bit...but seriously, read the whole thing.

Then we were told to load up and go back to where we got ambushed. I'm not going to lie, I didn't want to go back. Fu[%$] that sh[*%], I don't want to get killed. That was the last place on earth I wanted to be. I was scared to death. But we had to go back, and we did.

[...]

My roommate (Sgt from Idaho) tapped my arm, which startled the hell out of me and I quickly jerked back and looked at him and he yelled, "Hey!! Get that gun to the 12!!! Let that one go!! Your doing good!!!" He later told me, when he tapped me on the shoulder, and I jerked back to look at him, I had this crazed look in my eyes that kind of freaked him out.

If anyone is confused about the character of our soliders, you should seriously reconsider:

Once we got to the FOB, and parked near the motor pool to re-supply, a Sgt ran up to us holding all his gear and his kit and asked, "Hey you guys rolling back out? Do you have room for one more?" This guy who asked us if he could ride with us back out, was in that vehicle that was right in front of us earlier that got RPG'd. They had to drive back to the FOB, because the RPG went right through their vehicle and hit the guy sitting next to him in the stomach, slicing his guts wide open. And now he was now asking us if he could come with, to go give em some more hell. We had no room for him in our vehicle, we were jam packed because we had the guys from third squad with us because there vehicle was out of commission from multiple RPG hits. Since there was no room for him, he gave us all the ammo and his water he had on him, and told us "Go get em."

You do not want to mess with the fighting men of the United States of America. They may not want to fight...but they always do what is necessary.

Remember this guy's story the next time you take a breath.

---

*Unless, of course, you've been in combat.

Update:

The story is updated:

What angered me the most the other day was how inaccurate and very little press coverage the attack recieved. They all got it completely wrong. CNN, Al Jazzera, BBC, all of them. Cnn only reported 12 dead??? I told my friend from another Plt that and he said, "Shit! We killed 12 people in the first three minutes." I still wonder why, what happened the other day, over 100 crazed out Al Qaeda jihadist wearing all black and high off the Koran, attacking US Forces with everything they had received very little to no press in all the major news outlets????

Yep. Sad but true.

More:

These guys are covering this war based on whatever Illusions they want to portray on what its like here or whatever angle they want to project. I fu[%$]ing hate reporters. (please read my disclaimer to the right several times) At times I cant even watch the news because it all just makes me sick how they report it.

|

I have held off blogging too much about Kerry's war record for the simple reason that I think refighting the social issues of the Vietnam War sucks. It was not a pretty time in our history, and the Truth needs to be remembered (or refound, if you prefer), but there is no reason to open old wounds for political purposes. Unfortunately, Kerry has effectively declared open season on the entire issue.

The things that is currently getting under my skin about Kerry is his willingness to disparage his comrades...yet again:

Tax documents show that from April to June, the group collected $158,750 from 11 people, $100,000 of it from Bob Perry, a Houston developer and major contributor to Republican campaigns.

[...]

Kerry's aides discredited the veterans group and linked it to Republicans, noting that a public-relations consultant the group paid $27,000 this spring, Merrie Spaeth, was also involved in an advertising campaign attacking Senator John McCain during his tough race against George W. Bush in the 2000 primary in South Carolina.

Aside from the Media Bias (Kerry's aides [tried to] discredit...), this is yet another example of the Democrats smearing anyone who disagrees with them.

And, of course, the fact that an independent group with a political message is being bankrolled (to the tune of -gasp!- $100,000) by an Eeeevil Republican is supposed to taint the group's message? Are you kidding me?! I guess that it's ok for George Soros to pump millions into various Democrat machines for the express purpose of defeating George W. Bush, but it's obviously not ok for a Republican to back a group he agrees with.

So let's see, on the Left hand we have a bunch of political groups who want to unseat Bush and are being bankrolled by a Gazillionaire Lefty...for purely political reasons. That's ok.

On the Right hand, we have a group of Vietnam Vets who believe that John Kerry is Unfit for Command and are backed by a Republican. That's not ok.

Additionally, this is not necessarily an ideological attack in the political sense. Rather, these men believe that they have information directly contradicting claims made by a Presidential candidate...and they should be heard. Not silenced by the Democrat smear-machine.

More:

How disgraceful can the Kerry campaign get?

DNC Lawyers Work To Muzzle Swift Boat Vets' Ad

The letter claims the ad is "false" and "libelous" and suggests, in not-so-subtle terms, that TV stations should use their "legal authority" to refuse any requests for advertising airtime, stating that "because your station has this freedom [to refuse the ad], and because it is not a 'use' of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor" (emphasis added [but not my me]).

Dropping the metaphorical elbow on free, open and honest exchange of ideas and information. Way to go Party of the Big Tent!

More 2:

Bird has a good round up and Wizbang has a bit on this topic as well (here too).

Powerline (as always) has some good thoughts as well.
|

Tom at Redhunter has an interesting post on the relationship (or lack thereof) between military and/or combat experience and his success as President. I will admit that his knowledge and understanding of history far exceeds my own, and I am therefore in no position to evaluate his rating system (for the most part). However, from what I do feel comfortable with I agree wholeheartedly. Give it a read, you won't be disappointed.
|

I don't know why everyone has a problem with the so-called 'negative' campaign ads. It seems that a candidate can't make nearly everyone happy. If s/he runs 'positive' ads, s/he is accused of not providing enough specifics or of lying. If s/he, instead, runs 'negative' ads (by which I mean pointing out the opponent's record) then s/he is accused of attacking and (my personal favorite) bringing a nasty tone to the campaign.

What, exactly, is wrong with a candidate or group running ads to counter the opposition's 'positive' ads? If the Vietnam Vets Against Kerry or Swift Boat Vets want to expose what they see as outright lies coming from the Kerry campaign, why should they be vilified for it?

And while I'm in the mood, why doesn't John McCain just admit it and switch parties? Seriously:

McCain condemns anti-Kerry ads, calls on White House to follow suit

Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.

[...]

"I deplore this kind of politics," McCain said. "I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat (Kerry) commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War."

Look, here are a few facts:

1) Sen. McCain has no 1st hand knowledge of whether or not Kerry or Bush served honorably in their respective roles.

2) These vet groups do have 1st hand knowledge...and maybe they're even telling the truth.

3) Kerry made (and continues to make) his service in Vietnam a campaign issue by mentioning it every three or four sentences.

4) Bush did not make his service in Vietnam a campaign issue...the Left did.

If anything, McCain should have been out there jumping all over the Left during the When did Bush work out with his squad and how many pushups did he do?! crap. But since these standards are not applied consistently, the guy who does not make Vietnam an issue is constantly being hit over the head with it...and the guy who makes it a huge issue expects that only one side of the story will be told.

What a load of crap.

More:

Just ran across this article:

Kerry, speaking to minority journalists at their quadrennial Unity convention, "was warmly accepted throughout his speech and he drew big applause with his comments about the lack of minority journalists and ownership of television stations and newspapers," MSNBC.com's Darrell Bowling reported. "He says when he's president he would make sure to bring in an FCC chairman who would fight to increase minority ownership of broadcast outlets."

This guy just won't quit. Anybody out there keeping a list of promises? I don't know if I've got the time...but it would be fun.

Still More:

And...I'm not alone! (via Evan)
|