Wednesday, March 03, 2004

A new Enemy in the War on Terror

I have received several e-mails from regular readers of the site complaining that has become too partisan—a slave to President Bush’s re-election efforts. Correctly, writers have said: The war on terror should be nonpartisan. It affects all non-Islamists, including other Muslims, for those among us asleep with eyes wide open. It should be free from political machinations and irrational emotional verbiage.

I agree. As I told an editor at one of the world’s largest publishing houses recently, “a nuke detonated in Manhattan will respect neither democrat, republican nor independent.”

In a perfect world, the war on terror should be non-partisan. But the fact is—due to the democrats’ choice of a candidate—the new JFK has made himself an enemy to all Americans who truly understand the Islamist enemy who has declared war on democracy and all non-Islamists everywhere.

“The Democratic Party's presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has pledged that if elected he will abandon the president's war on terror, begin a dialogue with terrorist regimes and apologize for three-and-one-half years of mistakes by the Bush administration,” wrote Ken Timmerman in Insight Magazine.

John Kerry is a threat to America’s homeland security and it’s time for republican and independents to reciprocate the rage exhibited by the democrats. You need to go out and get every sane American who has never voted and get them to vote for President Bush in the next election. (This is not to mean I agree with President Bush on all issues—even within the war on terror—but John Kerry and the Democratic party have got to be kidding)

John Kerry is as dangerous as bin-Laden and will be worse than Jimmy Carter in practicing the catechism of liberal internationalist theology: passivity, acquiescence and almost reflexive anti-interventionism. In short, he is the most dangerous threat to your security and America’s power in the world that the democrats have ever allowed to run. You must do everything in your power to defeat this out-to-lunch liberal internationalist who wants to make America weak and a tool of Kofi and his America-hating friends.

Can you imagine the president of the United States apologizing for the foreign policy of a predecessor? Can you imagine blaming the President of the United States for terrorism?
This is what John Kerry promises to do and has been doing.

Unfortunately, the war on terror has become partisan. John Kerry has made it so. If you live in or near a big city, your safety may now be dependent on keeping this man out of the White House.

John Kerry is the democrat’s bin-Laden. He is not fit to lead this nation. Like bin-Laden he must be defeated. Help bring the war on terror to both of them.



Kenneth R. Timmerman says (below):

"Presidential contenders have criticized sitting presidents in times of war before, but what's unique today is that "it has become the rule, not the exception," says Michael Franc, vice president for government relations at the Heritage Foundation. "With a few notable exceptions, you have almost the entire Democratic Party hierarchy that opposes what Bush is doing in the most vitriolic and emotional terms."

Did the US Congress pass a declaration of war that somehow went completely unreported? It has become pathetically clear that George W. Bush has such a terrible record, both domestic and foreign, that his handlers and his sycophants have decided early on to play the "war card". Yes, like the rest of a weary nation, I sat through Tim Russert's mollycoddling of the President on "Meet the Press" and heard a grave and stumbling George W. Bush proclaim over and over and over again that he is a "war time president".

Leaving aside for the moment the blame due to the cowards in Congress, we ought at least to note that the Constitution (which still exists in print if apparently not in spirit) specifically reserves to the Congress the power to declare war. In spite of 50 years of congressional abdication of responsibility and usurpation by presidents of both parties of war powers, the United States of America is most emphatically NOT AT WAR.

Furthermore it is the sacred duty of the loyal opposition in all forms of democratic and representative governments to speak loudly, publicly, and proudly when it disagrees with the president--especially in time of war (which this is not). To hold that disagreement or criticism of the president whenever troops are in harm's way is somehow less than patriotic is to show both ignorance of and disregard for the foundations of our form of government. Worse it appears to show fear--fear that if actually questioned, the actions of the president cannot be reasonably justified.

Since it may well be that the best path to greater safety for all American citizens, citizens of nations friendly to America, and all those who simply seek a peaceful life does NOT lie in war, then any true American patriot will champion critical discourse. And yes, the right and duty to be critical of the president includes presidential candidates in election years. When a sitting president puts on his Command in Chief hat he does not cease to be the political leader of the country and does not acquire infallibility. A man serving as president of the United States when acting in his capacity as commander of our national military forces is as prone to error in his military decisions as he is in formulating his domestic policies.

In short, there is nothing in a free society as dangerous and un-patriotic as the attempt to stifle dissent. Too many of those who support the president can't seem to resist wrapping themselves in the flag and accusing those who disagree with them of (what are Ann Coulter's favorite words?) "Treason" and "Slander" and "aiding the enemy".

Perhaps 52 years without War and 52 years of television hyperbole have resulted in a nation that "misunderestimates" what war is and why the framers carefully and explicity reserved to the Congress the right to declare it--and, by the way, the responsibility to raise the money to pay for it. It may well be that Lyndon Johnson is to blame for calling his program to reduce hunger and homelessness the "War on Poverty". It may well be that Congress knew that the citizens of America were, in 1950, still reeling from World War II and would not support another real war against North Korea. It may be that the congresses of the 1960s and early 1970s used the Korean Conflict as a precedent and an excuse to send over 58,000 American soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen and women to die in VietNam without a declaration of war. It may be that these precedents have allowed members of the House and Senate to stand aside while presidents have sent US forces to die in military interventions all over the globe without the constitutional authority to do so.

One possible reason, of course, that we are not now at "war" in Iraq is that a true declaration of war requires that members of Congress be accountable to the American people. One possible reason we cannot be at "war" in our "War on Terror" is that we have no nation and no clearly identifiable political entity upon which to declare war. Of the four horsemen, one is born of Man. We should not take his name so much in vain.


Kerry would abandon terror war

From Worldnet daily .... So you can begin to underststand the meaning of "Liberal Elite," anf foreign policy wimp

Posted: March 2, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: WorldNetDaily is pleased to have a content-sharing agreement with Insight magazine, the bold Washington publication not afraid to ruffle establishment feathers. Subscribe to Insight at WorldNetDaily's online store and save 71 percent off the cover price.
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
© 2004 Insight/News World Communications Inc.

The Democratic Party's presidential front-runner, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has pledged that if elected he will abandon the president's war on terror, begin a dialogue with terrorist regimes and apologize for three-and-one-half years of mistakes by the Bush administration.

In a sweeping foreign-policy address to the Council on Foreign Relations in December, Kerry called the U.S. war on terror as conceived and led by President Bush "the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history."

Kerry's remarks were widely praised by journalists. The Associated Press headlined its report on his speech, "Kerry Vows to Repair Foreign Relations." The Knight Ridder news service noted that the new focus on foreign policy "plays to Kerry's strength." None of the major U.S. dailies found Kerry's unusually strident language at all inappropriate. "Kerry Vows to Change U.S. Foreign Policy; Senator Describes Steps He Would Take as President," the Washington Post headlined ponderously.

Presidential contenders have criticized sitting presidents in times of war before, but what's unique today is that "it has become the rule, not the exception," says Michael Franc, vice president for government relations at the Heritage Foundation. "With a few notable exceptions, you have almost the entire Democratic Party hierarchy that opposes what Bush is doing in the most vitriolic and emotional terms."

Heritage presidential historian Lee Edwards called it "not a foreign-policy analysis but a polemical speech, filled with inflammatory rhetoric that is disturbing and beyond the pale. What this suggests is that Mr. Kerry wants to take us back to President [Bill] Clinton and his U.N.-led multilateral policies."

Kerry promised to spend the first 100 days of his administration traveling the world to denounce his predecessor, apologize for his "radically wrong" policy, and seek "cooperation and compromise" with friend and foe alike. Borrowing language normally reserved to characterize "rogue" states, Kerry said he would "go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations."

Perhaps frustrated that his radical departure from the war on terror was not getting much attention in the trenches of Democratic Party politics, Kerry ordered his campaign to mobilize grass-roots supporters to spread the word.

In one e-mail message, obtained by Insight and confirmed as authentic by the Kerry camp, the senator's advisers enlisted overseas Democrats to launch a letter-writing and op-ed campaign denouncing the Bush foreign-policy record.

"'It is in the urgent interests of the people of the United States to restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world," the message states. "America needs the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build new friendships and overcome tensions with others."

The e-mail succeeded beyond the wildest dream of Kerry's handlers -- at least, so they tell Insight. It was immediately picked up by the Mehr news agency in Tehran, and appeared the next day on the front page of a leading hard-line daily there.

"I have no idea how they got hold of that letter, which was prepared for Democrats Abroad," Kerry's top foreign-policy aide, Rand Beers, tells Insight. "I scratched my head when I saw that. The only way they could have gotten it was if someone in Iran was with Democrats Abroad."

The hard-line, anti-American Tehran Times published the entire text of the seven-paragraph e-mail under a triumphant headline announcing that Kerry pledged to "repair damage if he wins election." By claiming that the Kerry campaign had sent the message directly to an Iranian news agency in Tehran, the paper indicated that the e-mail was a demonstration of Kerry's support for a murderous regime that even today tops the State Department's list of supporters of international terrorism.

According to dissident Ayatollah Mehdi Haeri, who fled Iran for Germany after being held for four years in a regime prison, Iran's hard-line clerics "fear President Bush." In an interview with Insight, Haeri says that President Bush's messages of support to pro-democracy forces inside Iran and his insistence that the Iranian regime abandon its nuclear-weapons program "have given these people the shivers. They think that if Bush is re-elected, they'll be gone. That's why they want to see Kerry elected."

The latest Bush message, released on Feb. 24, commented on the widely boycotted Iranian parliamentary elections that took place the week before.

"I am very disappointed in the recently disputed parliamentary elections in Iran," President Bush said. "The disqualification of some 2,400 candidates by the unelected Guardian Council deprived many Iranians of the opportunity to freely choose their representatives. I join many in Iran and around the world in condemning the Iranian regime's efforts to stifle freedom of speech, including the closing of two leading reformist newspapers in the run-up to the election. Such measures undermine the rule of law and are clear attempts to deny the Iranian people's desire to freely choose their leaders. The United States supports the Iranian people's aspiration to live in freedom, enjoy their God-given rights and determine their own destiny."

The Kerry campaign released no statement on the widely discredited Iranian elections, reinforcing allegations from pro-democracy Iranian exiles in America that the junior senator from Massachusetts is working hand-in-glove with pro-regime advocates in the United States.

Kerry foreign-policy aide Beers tried to nuance the impression that Kerry was willing to seek new ties with the Tehran regime and forgive the Islamic republic for 25 years of terror that began by taking U.S. diplomats hostage in Tehran in 1979 and continues to this day with Iran's overt support and harboring of top al-Qaida operatives. Just the day before the e-mail message was sent to the Mehr news agency, Beers told a foreign-policy forum in Washington that Kerry "is not saying that he is looking for better relations with Iran. He is looking for a dialogue with Iran. There are some issues on which we really need to sit down with the Iranians."

The word "dialogue" immediately gives comfort to hard-liners, says Ayatollah Haeri. While Beer's comments went unnoticed by the U.S. press, they were prominently featured by the official Islamic Republic News Agency in a Feb. 7 dispatch from Washington.

In an interview with Insight, Beers went even further. "We are prepared to talk to the Iranian government" of hard-line, anti-American clerics, he insisted. "While we realize we have major differences, there are areas that could form the basis for cooperation, such as working together to stop drug production in Afghanistan."

Beers has a special history in Washington. A longtime National Security Council aide who served President Clinton and was carried over by the Bush White House, he resigned as the war in Iraq began in March 2003. Just weeks later, he volunteered for the Kerry campaign. The Washington Post heralded him in a profile as "a lifelong bureaucrat" who was an "unlikely insurgent." Yet the Post acknowledged that he was a "registered Democrat" who by resigning at such a critical moment was "not just declaring that he's a Democrat. He's declaring that he's a Kerry Democrat, and the way he wants to make a difference in the world is to get his former boss [Bush] out of office."

Talking to Insight, Beers compares Kerry's proposal to begin talks with Iran to the senator's earlier advocacy of renewing relations with Vietnam after the Vietnam War: "No expectations, eyes wide open."

With Iran, which is known to be harboring top al-Qaida operatives, Beers says "there is no way to have a deal without having the hard-liners as part of the dialogue. We are prepared to talk to the hard-line element" as part of an overall political dialogue with the Iranian regime.

The Kerry policy of seeking an accommodation with the regime is not new, says Patrick Clawson, the deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who has been tracking Iran policy for two decades.

"Kerry's approach is that of many in Europe who think you must entice rogue regimes. Enticement only works if it is followed up with the notion that there would be a penalty if they didn't behave. I see nothing of that in Sen. Kerry's statements."

For Aryo Pirouznia, who chairs the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, Kerry's offer to negotiate with hard-liners in the regime smacks of lunacy.

"America is incredibly popular with the Iranian masses, so this is a grave mistake for a short-term benefit," Pirouznia says. "To the regime, this sends a message that America is willing to make a deal despite the blood of Americans who were murdered in Dhahran [Saudi Arabia] and are being killed today in Iraq by so-called foreign elements. And to Iranians, it shows that the old establishment may be back in power, a return to the Carter era."

Pirouznia's Texas-based support group, which worked closely with protesting students during the July 1999 uprising in Tehran, sent an open letter to Kerry on Feb. 19 noting that "millions of dollars" had been raised for the Democratic Party by Iranian-American political-action committees and fund-raisers with ties to the Tehran regime.

"By sending such a message directly to the organs and the megaphones of the dictatorial Islamic regime, you have given them credibility, comfort and embraced this odious theocracy," Pirouznia says. "You have encouraged and emboldened a tyrannical regime to use this as propaganda and declare 'open season' on the freedom fighters in Iran."


Subscribe to Insight

Kenneth R. Timmerman is a senior writer for Insight magazine.


Tuesday, March 02, 2004


Without Mindless Fear--The Ugly Truth about Cowardice and the Right

Let's get right to the point. The fearmongering, chest-thumping, verbal feces-throwing chickenhawks all have a common trait: cowardice. They are terrified adolescent boys who have been handed a gift--by invoking the 'terrorist threat' at every turn, just like the playground bullies most of them were at age 12, they steal your lunch money and do their best to keep you terrified.

Apparently a thousand years of constant warfare and bloodshed are not enough for these guys. No. They are frightened and angry and they will kill for it.

Although the "reasons" for going to war have usually been manifold and complex, they should revolve around national security. NATIONAL SECURITY. Got it? Not public safety. What is a threat to "national security"? Stands to reason that a threat to "national security" would be a threat to the very existence of our nation. That is, if not countered, the force behind the threat could conquer the USA. The Kaiser in WWI and Hitler and Hirohito in WWII were genuine, bonafied threats to national security. Had we not prevailed against them we would have been conquered and ruled as a subject nation. Nuclear holocaust and assured destruction. Now there's a national security threat. The Soviets were not merely in a position to annoy us or threaten our oil revenue. No--they could have utterly destroyed the USA.

In most other cases since WWII, there has not in fact been a threat to the national security of the United States. The Korean Conflict (not war) was fought over the national security of South Korea and the so-called Domino Theory. The VietNam Conflict (not war) was fought to stem the communist tide. Our military adventures throughout the world in the last half of the 20th century were about many things--but none of them, not one, was about the national security of the United States. And that includes both the invastion of Iraq and the so-called "War" on Terror.

A "national security threat" is the mantra of every power-grabbing, over-reaching bully in the history of human government. "You are with us or against us. We must get them before they get us. Take the fight to the enemy. We will lose our way of life. Do you want the [fill in the blank] hordes raping your daughters?"

Yet we are now told that nearly everything is a threat to national security. You cannot take a hockey stick on to an airplane and women (presumably) are told to refrain from wearing underwire bras--in defense of national security. You can and will be fined thousands of dollars for attempting humor in the wrong place at the wrong time--to protect national security.

Yet--every terrorist in the world, acting in concert could not destroy the United States. Make no mistake, there is very definitely a threat to personal and public safety. Aircraft used as weapons, as we all know, have killed thousands and cost billions. Yet, the impact on the American Republic was so great in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks that President Bush urged Americans to continue shopping. The greatest single act of violence against the citizens of the United States on its own soil killed approximately 3000 people. Yet in a year, travel, work-related, and home accidents--yes, accidents--kill more than 100,000. Are you terrifed of driving?

Again--make no mistake--terrorists do pose a real threat to individual and public safety. But American citizens have been drafted by our leadership into a "War on Terror", something akin to using a firehose to end a flood. The "War on Terror" will succeed in exactly the same way as the "War on Drugs". In the United States we solve all of our problems with WAR: the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on terror. And it's hard for the world to respect the USA as a nation because we apparently never learn anything. Since we have had a war on drugs (over 35 years) we know just how successful these wars are. After all, we are now illegal drug free, right? And the war on poverty? Thank goodness we have rid the nation of the poor.

Nevertheless, we are now faced with a real threat--insane ideologues with a genuine determination to kill US citizens just for being US citizens. But a war? No. And waging a war is not the answer, not to poverty, not to drug abuse, and not to terror. But waging a war is the answer to a bully's wet dream. Scare the crap out of everyone and steal their lunch money.


Kerry—Another Liberal Better Suited For Kofi’s Job Rather Than President

John Kerry’s handlers have enjoyed several months of the new JFK being able to make false, outlandish and sometimes wildly adolescent statements in their attempt to define him to the American voters. One of these is trying to mask the fact that behind his heroics in Vietnam, John Kerry is another wimp along the lines of Jimmy Carter who would have America behave as weak and passive and get Kofi’s blessing before taking military action against enemies.

Well John, you’ve tried to be tough and run your mouth with the, “Bring it on,” parody every chance you get. By Thursday, when the big guns begin to volley you are going to get your wish—and your whining quotient is going to increase dramatically.

You and your staff will be chattering like a group of chimpanzees chased by a Lion through the jungle. Squealing and bawling and unable to explain your 20-something year history of over-reliance on treaties and international agreements rather than intervention, voting against every new major weapons systems for our troops, and your desire for acquiescence rather than confronting the truly evil people who threaten our national interests.

John, you’re just another elite Liberal Internationalist who would have America subjugate our power to Kofi, Jacques, Gerhard and others.

Here’s the way one the big boys, Charles Krauthammer, described your worldview during his recent AEI lecture: “Liberal internationalism is the foreign policy of the Democratic Party and the religion of the foreign policy elite. It has a peculiar history. It traces its pedigree to Woodrow Wilson’s utopianism, Harry Truman’s anticommunism, and John Kennedy’s militant universalism. But after the Vietnam War, it was transmuted into an ideology of passivity, acquiescence and almost reflexive anti-interventionism.”

John, as your senate record starts hitting the airwaves this week let me teach three new words: passivity, acquiescence, and anti-interventionism. We’ll have to dumb it down for a sound bite but you get the idea.

I heard your chattering on TV last night that President Bush’s actions had increased terrorism in the world. Besides being an un-provable lie, and the politicization of a threat that most American’s still haven’t come to grips with yet, it shows the lack of backbone you’ve acquired since getting back from Vietnam. What were we supposed to do? Let bin-Laden and his group of statesmen continue to build a terror group larger than some third-world armies? Do you understand what a nuke in Manhattan, DC, or LA would mean? Do you think any of the relatives of the half-a-million or so that were killed by ghoulish Hussein family are glad we intervened?

In a world where bin Laden probably has a nuke, there is a choice to make. You can choose the realism, however un-idealistic of President Bush. Or you can choose passivity, acquiescence, and anti-interventionism.

John and the chimpanzees need to get ready. The lion is coming.


Sunday, February 29, 2004

Terry Mcauliffe Wants This Election To Be About Issues -- bin Laden was converted after seeing "The Passion."

My rant concerning the liberal elites second-coming-of-JFK, Senator John Kerry and his total lack of understanding of the elements necessary to have any semblance of an effective Homeland Security policy will now have to wait until Tuesday. This is because I just heard DNC Chairman Terry Mcauliffe on FOX news utter the type of election year swill for which if there were true justice in the world, he would have his tounge cut out, then caned like a one-eyed circus monkey and sent to Saudi Arabia and forced to submit to the loving Islam of the Wahhabis.

Or better yet, he could go to Iran and help spread a story of how bin Laden converted to Christianity after seeing" The Passion," and so now President Bush's war on terror is over. It is totally believable, since the other swill this weekend was the Iranian' s assertion that the U.S. captured him sometime ago. But I go astray.

Terry said he wants this election to be about issues.

Are you laughing yet?

So far the only issues we’ve heard coming out of the mouth of any of the democratic candidates can be paraphrased like this: We hate President George Bush, John Ashcroft, Vice President Cheney and any other republican. Don’t you hate them too? Can Michael Moore and Sean Penn be wrong? We’re still angry that you stole the election/beat us in 2000. No matter what the issue, it’s the tax cuts that caused it. We are going to raise your taxes, you filthy rich people. You can’t question John Kerry’s after-war record because of his Vietnam experience. John Kerry’s senate voting record is a mirage. Calling John Kerry a liberal is practicing the politics of hate.

Terry Mcauliffe is like a crack ho’ who will do anything to keep John Kerry from discussing issues.

So let’s help Terry focus on an issue. John Kerry lacks President Bush’s experience in dealing with the war on terror or leading this country in wartime.

John Kerry’s wartime leadership experience consists of heroically commanding a patrol boat in Vietnam.

President George Bush has led the nation through one of the darkest times in our history and had the courage to take some unpopular measures (particularly with liberals like John Kerry and his buddy Senator Ted Kennedy) that have up-to-now prevented another catastrophic attack within America.

Command of a patrol boat or command of a nation—which man do you want at the helm during the next four years?

There are many democrats who have admitted how thankful they were that Al Gore wasn’t president when 9/11 happened. Likewise several democrats admitted publicly what a great job President Bush did in the aftermath. Wonder how many are going to feel that way about the new JFK when his senate record starts pouring out from the TV?

Once again Terry the issue is: There is a big experience gap between commanding a patrol boat and commanding a nation’s military and homeland defense assets.

But of course to say that is to question John Kerry’s patriotism.

Where is that knife and cane?


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?