Saturday, October 30, 2004

Real Clear Politics Has Bush Leading All But Zogby Poll

2004 Presidential Race - 3 Way
Poll Date Bush/
Cheney Kerry/
Edwards Nader/
Camejo Spread
RCP Average 10/21-10/29 48.7% 46.2% 1.0% Bush +2.5
Reuters/Zogby (1203 LV) 10/27 - 10/29 46% 47% 2% Kerry +1
FOX News (1200 LV) 10/27 - 10/28 50% 45% 0% Bush +5
ABC/Wash Post (2047 LV)* 10/25 - 10/28 50% 47% 0% Bush +3
GW/Battleground (1000 LV) 10/25 - 10/28 51% 46% 0% Bush +5
TIPP (792 LV) 10/25 - 10/28 46% 46% 2% TIE
ICR (741 LV) 10/22 - 10/26 48% 45% 2% Bush +3
CNN/USAT/Gallup (1195 LV) 10/22 - 10/24 51% 46% 1% Bush +5
Los Angeles Times (881 LV) 10/21 - 10/24 48% 48% 1% TIE
Newsweek (880 LV) 10/21 - 10/22 48% 46% 1% Bush +2


AIM Report: "Can Dan" Campaign on Verge of Success

AIM is leading the campaign to hold Dan DNC Rather and Mary Mapes guilty for their fraudulent story designed to influence the election

"This is a brazen attempt to deceive the American people and subvert a U.S. presidential election."

AIM founder Reed Irvine's "Can Dan" campaign against Dan Rather, launched 16 years ago, appears to be on the verge of success.

AIM members, staffers and supporters gathered outside the CBS News offices in Washington, D.C., on September 21 to call for the firing of Dan Rather in the wake of the CBS Evening News anchorman's use of forged documents in a story designed to discredit President Bush. Rather, in a "60 Minutes" broadcast on September 8, featured documents purportedly authored by a National Guard commander, in order to prove that Bush had neglected his service to the nation as a young man in the Guard during the Vietnam War.

In a statement to the press, AIM editor Cliff Kincaid said that CBS had been caught "in the middle of a criminal conspiracy" that was seeking "to use forged documents to bring down an American president." Kincaid added, "This is a brazen attempt to deceive the American people and subvert a U.S. presidential election."

AIM was joined by members of the, one of the national websites featuring the Internet "bloggers" who were the first to draw attention to the discrepancies in the CBS documents and the fact that they were likely forgeries. For their efforts, a former CBS News executive ridiculed them as people wearing their pajamas in front of their computers.

But at the anti-CBS protest, several of the "Freepers," including FreeRepublic spokesman Kristinn Taylor, proudly wore their pajamas. (The complete statements of Kincaid and Taylor are included at the end of this AIM Report).

Rather eventually apologized for the broadcast and acknowledged that the network received the documents from bitter ex-Guardsman Bill Burkett, a partisan critic of Bush who admitted deceiving the network about where they had come from. Burkett did not identify their ultimate source.

CBS then announced that former Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and retired Associated Press (AP) official Louis Boccardi would investigate the scandal.

But AIM said that the current Attorney General—or at least the FBI—might have an interest in the "Rathergate" matter. After all, forging government documents is a violation of federal and state law.

Federal law prohibits the forging of government or public records for the purpose of defrauding the U.S. In a Supreme Court case, Hammerschmidt v. United States, Chief Justice Taft defined "defraud" as follows: "To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the Government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest." This means, the Justice said, that it "is not necessary that the Government shall be subjected to property or pecuniary loss by the fraud, but only that its legitimate official action and purpose shall be defeated by misrepresentation" or fraud.

The broadcasting of forged documents to affect a presidential campaign and election clearly falls in the parameters of "conspiracy to defraud."

Ironically, CBS initially claimed that it was the responsibility of the White House to expose the documents as forgeries. Its rationale is that it turned the forgeries over to the White House communications director Dan Bartlett, who did not immediately expose or denounce them as forgeries. The Washington Post reported that CBS correspondent John Roberts called "60 Minutes" producer Mary Mapes "with word that Bartlett was not challenging the authenticity of the documents. Mapes told her bosses, who were so relieved that they cut from Rather's story an interview with a handwriting expert who had examined the memos. At that point, said '60 Minutes' executive Josh Howard, 'we completely abandoned the process of authenticating the documents.'"

With such a position, CBS should not now object to an FBI investigation into the origin and distribution of the forgeries. It should be prepared to waive its First Amendment privileges in order to determine the truth and punish the perpetrators of this fraud



This is from the South Asia Analysis Group

by B.Raman

In his election campaign, Senator John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, has been blaming President George Bush for the failure to capture or kill Osama bin Laden during the battle at Tora Bora in Afghanistan towards the end of 2001.

2. According to Kerry, the US failure was due to the fact that instead of using US troops in the battle, Bush outsourced the job of getting bin Laden to the Afghan warlords, who let bin Laden escape.

3. Kerry's claims are partly true and partly incorrect. They are true to the extent that the US military did use Afghan warlords and Pakistani and Afghan narcotics barons, who know the topography of the Tora Bora area like the palm of their hands, to help it in its battle against Al Qaeda. The US narcotics control authorities were asked by the Pentagon not to take any action against the narcotics barons till bin Laden was caught and some Pakistani narcotics barons arrested before 9/11 under US pressure and jailed in Pakistan were got released by the Pentagon for being used in Tora Bora. I had referred to this many times in my past articles.

4. Kerry's claims are incorrect in the sense that contrary to what he has been stating, the command and control of the Tora Bora operations remained in the hands of the US military and a large number of US troops and aircraft participated in the battle and suffered casualties. However, the US troops did not raid the caves. They made the Afghans do it. They avoided a frontal confrontation with Al Qaeda.

5. Before the start of the US-led invasion of Iraq last year and coinciding with the end of the fasting period, bin Laden had issued a detailed message to the Iraqi people advising them as to how they should confront the Americans. In his message, which was broadcast by Al Jazeera on February 11, 2003, he described how Al Qaeda under his leadership had fought the Americans at Tora Bora and advised the Iraqis to emulate their example. Annexed are extracts from an article on the message written by me on March 30, 2003. Presuming what bin Laden had stated is correct, a perusal of his message would show that the US military played an active role in the Tora Bora battle and that Kerry's contention is wrong. However, bin Laden did refer to the role of the Afghan warlords whom he described as the "forces of the hypocrites, whom they prodded to fight us for 15 days non-stop."

6. As mentioned by me on many occasions in the past, the Tora Bora operation failed due to two reasons. Firstly, the warlords and the narcotics barons played a double game. While ostensibly helping the US forces, they kept bin Laden and his fighters informed of the US military movements. Secondly, Pakistan on which too the US depended for sealing off its border with Afghanistan to prevent the escape of bin Laden and other jihadi terrorists into Pakistani territory, quietly let them pass.

7. In fact, bin Laden, who was incapacitated by a sharpnel injury at Tora Bora, was shifted to the Binori madrasa in Karachi, where he was under treatment till August,2002. Since then, he has disappeared. He was keeping in touch with his followers through video and audio messages till April, 2004. Since then, he has been observing even electronic silence.

8. He used to circulate at least three messages every year to his followers----on the anniversary of 9/11 to pay homage to the terrorists who participated in the terrorist strikes in US territory; before the beginning of the Ramadan fasting period and at the end of the fasting period. This year, he did not issue any message coinciding with 9/11. Instead, there was a message from Ayman al-Zawahiri, his No. 2. Nor has there been a message before the start of the fasting period.

9. The continuing silence of bin Laden could be due to one of the following reasons:

He is dead. Reliable Shia sources in Pakistan believe that there is a greater possibility of his being dead than alive. Though their arguments are strong, I am disinclined, for the present, to believe them because if he is really dead the news would have spread like wild fire in the tribal areas of Pakistan. He is literally worshipped there and his burial site, if in tribal territory, would have become a place of pilgrimage. The Sunni tribals insist he must be alive though none of them claims to have seen him.
He is observing electronic silence for his own physical security.
He has been sidelined by his followers and has no longer any de facto or de jure control over Al Qaeda or the International Islamic Front (IIF) formed by him in February,1998. The increasing audibility of al-Zawahiri indicate the possibility of his playing the leadership role at least in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region, though not in Iraq. I have been writing since April,2003, that bin Laden is no longer in day-to-day control of the IIF. This is now being exercised by Pakistan's Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), which has been in the forefront of recruiting volunteers and collecting funds for the jihad in Iraq.
10. If bin Laden is still alive, where will he be? In the past, US military officials were saying that he ought to be in the tribal areas on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Now they are increasingly saying that he is most probably in Balochistan--- possibly in the Pashtun majority areas of Balochistan. If he goes into the Baloch majority areas, the Baloch people, though Sunnis, and the Shia Hazaras would hunt him.
11. In my past articles, I have been arguing as to why it was unlikely that he would take shelter in the tribal areas near the Afghanistan border. The most important argument was that American troops were right across the border in Afghan territory and if they came to know of bin Laden's presence in the adjoining Pakistani territory, they would make a foray into Pakistan with or without the permission of Gen.Pervez Musharraf and kill or whisk him out.

12. Shia sources in Pakistan say that if he is alive there is a greater likelihood of his being in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir (POK) than in the tribal areas near the Afghan border. The POK is Pakistan's Falluja, a stronghold of diehard Sunni elements. And, it is outside the easy reach of the American troops.

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Distinguished Fellow and Convenor, Observer Research Foundation (ORF), Chennai Chapter. E-Mail: )

( )

"We are following with great interest and extreme concern the crusaders' preparations for war to occupy a former capital of Islam, loot Muslims' wealth, and install an agent government, which would be a satellite for its masters in Washington and Tel Aviv, just like all the other treasonous and agent Arab governments.

"We realized from our defence and fighting against the American enemy that, in combat, they mainly depend on psychological warfare. This is in light of the huge media machine they have. They also depend on massive air strikes so as to conceal their most prominent point of weakness, which is the fear, cowardliness, and the absence of combat spirit among US soldiers.

"We also realized that one of the most effective and available methods of rendering the air force of the crusader enemy ineffective is by setting up roofed and disguised trenches in large numbers.

"I had referred to that in a previous statement during the Tora Bora battle last year. We were about 300 mujahideen.We dug 100 trenches that were spread in an area that does not exceed one square mile, one trench for every three brothers, so as to avoid the huge human losses resulting from the bombardment. Since the first hour of the US campaign on 20 Rajab 1422, corresponding to 7 October 2001, our centres were exposed to a concentrated bombardment. And this bombardment continued until mid-Ramadan. On 17 Ramadan, a very fierce bombardment began, particularly after the US command was certain that some of al-Qaeda leaders were still in Tora Bora, including the humble servant to God [referring to himself] and the brother mujahid Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri.The bombardment was round-the-clock and the warplanes continued to fly over us day and night.

"The US Pentagon, together with its allies, worked full time on blowing up and destroying this small spot, as well as on removing it entirely. Planes poured their lava on us, particularly after accomplishing their main missions in Afghanistan. The US forces attacked us with smart bombs, bombs that weigh thousands of pounds, cluster bombs, and bunker busters. Bombers, like the B-52, used to fly over head for more than two hours and drop between 20 to 30 bombs at a time. The modified C-130 aircraft kept carpet-bombing us at night, using modern types of bombs. The US forces dared not break into our positions, despite the unprecedented massive bombing and terrible propaganda targeting this completely besieged small area.

"This is in addition to the forces of hypocrites, whom they prodded to fight us for 15 days non-stop. Every time the latter attacked us, we forced them out of our area carrying their dead and wounded.

'To sum it up, the battle resulted in the complete failure of the international alliance of evil, with all its forces, [to overcome] a small number of mujahideen - 300 mujahideen hunkered down in trenches spread over an area of one square mile under a temperature of -10 degrees Celsius. The battle resulted in the injury of 6% of personnel - we hope God will accept them as martyrs - and the damage of two percent of the trenches, praise be to God.

"If all the world forces of evil could not achieve their goals on a one square mile of area against a small number of mujahideen with very limited capabilities, how can these evil forces triumph over the Muslim world? This is impossible, God willing, if people adhere to their religion and insist on jihad for its sake.

"O mujahideen brothers in Iraq, do not be afraid of what the United States is propagating in terms of their lies about their power and their smart, laser-guided missiles. The smart bombs will have no effect worth mentioning in the hills and in the trenches, on plains, and in forests. They must have apparent targets. The well-camouflaged trenches and targets will not be reached by either the smart or the stupid missiles. There will only be haphazard strikes that dissipate the enemy ammunition and waste its money. Dig many trenches.

"The [caliph] Umar, may God be pleased with him, stated: "Take the ground as a shield because this will ensure the exhaustion of all the stored enemy missiles within months. "Their daily production is too little and can be dealt with, God willing.

'We also recommend luring the enemy forces into a protracted, close, and exhausting fight, using the camouflaged defensive positions in plains, farms, mountains, and cities. The enemy fears city and street wars most, a war in which the enemy expects grave human losses.

"We stress the importance of the martyrdom operations against the enemy - operations that inflicted harm on the United States and Israel that have been unprecedented in their history, thanks to Almighty God.

"Needless to say, this crusade war is primarily targeted against the people of Islam. Regardless of the removal or the survival of the socialist party or Saddam, Muslims in general and the Iraqis in particular must brace themselves for jihad against this unjust campaign and acquire ammunition and weapons. There will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists.

"The fighting, which is waging and which will be waged these days, is very much like the fighting of Muslims against the Byzantine in the past. And the convergence of interests is not detrimental. The Muslims' fighting against the Byzantine converged with the interests of the Persians. And this was not detrimental to the companions of the prophet.

"Before concluding, we reiterate the importance of high morale and caution against false rumours, defeatism, uncertainty, and discouragement.The prophet said: "Bring good omens and do not discourage people." During the Al-Yarmuk Battle, a man told Khalid bin-al-Walid [an Islamic commander]: "The Byzantine soldiers are too many and the Muslims are few."

So, Khalid told him: "Shame on you. Armies do not triumph with large numbers but are defeated if the spirit of defeatism prevails."

Thousands of copies of this message have been got made in the Binori madrasa of Karachi and in the Akora Khattak madrasa of Peshawar in Pakistan and sent to Iraq via Jordan for distribution amongst the Iraqi people and soldiers to counteract the effect of the anti-Saddam Hussein pamphlets being disseminated by the coalition forces.

In the sermons delivered in many mosques of Pakistan after the Friday prayers on March 28,2003, God and bin Laden were thanked for going to the help of the Iraqi people in their hour of trial. The sandstorms, which swept across the deserts from March 25 slowing down the advance of the coalition troops towards Baghdad, were described by the Mullas as sent by God to protect the Iraqi people and to teach the Americans a lesson. The credit for the resistance put up by the Iraqi soldiers was attributed to the inspiring example of bin Laden and his message to the Iraqi people. Appeals were also made to the Shias of Iraq not to fall a prey to what was described as the Anglo-American machinations to create a split between the Shias and the Sunnis and use the former against the latter


Friday, October 29, 2004

Entire Bin Laden Message from Northeast Intelligence Network

Osama Bin Laden addresses American people in video tape aired on Al Jazeera
Looking very much like a senior statesman, Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden addressed the American people in a video taped message delivered to Al Jazeera satellite television earlier today.

Unlike previous videos where Bin Laden clearly is addressing his followers, this video is clearly aimed directly at the American population. From a historical perspective, Bin Laden messages have always been full of Qu’ranic quotes and Islamic rhetoric. But in this message, Bin Laden explains to the American people in a calm manner why he has declared war on the United States.

Most previous messages have shown Bin Laden with other Al Qaeda commanders. In this tape, Bin Laden appears alone, sitting calmly in front of what appears to be a brown cloth backdrop. The automatic weapon, seen at Bin Laden’s side in most other videos from the world terror leader, is absent.

But the most striking feature of this video tape is the focus on the American political situation.

The tape makes reference to both the Republican incumbent President George W. Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry. A full translation and analysis is in progress.

Translation of Bin Laden's statement

To you, the American people, my speech to you tells you the best way to avoid another tragedy like that of Manhattan in this war. It is about the reason for the war, and the results that have come from it. Here in the beginning of this speech, I tell you that security is an important element in human life. And free people don't give up their freedom (security). This is contrary to Bush's claims. He says that we hate freedom.. He should tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example. It is well known that those who hate freedom don't have great spirits like the 19 who died, God bless their souls. But we fought you because we are free people. We don’t want oppression. We want to regain the freedom of our Muslim nation. As you spoil our security, we will spoil your security.

You surprise me. We are four years since the events of September 11. Bush continues to practice telling lies and misleading you, and will not tell you the reasons why we attacked you. So the reasons for to attack you continue to exist. But I will tell you the reasons for these attacks.

I will honestly tell you of the moment when the decision was made to attack you. I tell you that God knows we did not originally thing to attack the towers. But we have had enough. We have seen the attacks on our people in Palestine and Lebanon by the Israelis, and after that, it stuck in my mind. The events that influenced me most strongly go back to 1982 when America allowed Israel to invade Palestine, and the US (Navy) Sixth Fleet helped them with that.

In those difficult moments many emotions came over me which are hard to describe, but which produced an overwhelming feeling to reject injustice and a strong determination to punish the unjust.

As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way and to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are experiencing, so that they stop killing our children and women.

We had no difficulty in dealing with Bush and his administration because they resemble the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half by the sons of kings, and we have a lot of experience dealing with them.

They are all arrogant and stubborn and the greedy and take money without right and that similarity was clear during the visits of Bush to the region. People from our side were impressed by the US and hoped that these visits would influence our countries. But instead he was being influenced by these regimes, both the royal and military ones. And he was feeling jealous that they were staying for decades in power, and stealing the wealth of the nations without anyone overseeing them. So he transferred the oppression of freedom and tyranny to his son and he created the Patriot Law to fight terrorism. He was intelligence and put his sons as governors in states and he didn't forget to transfer his experience from the rulers of our region to Florida to falsify elections so that he could benefit from it in critical times.

We had agreed with the overall commander Mohammed Atta, may God bless his soul, to carry out all of the operations in 20 minutes before Bush and his administration would take notice.

But we never thought that the high commander in chief of the American forces (Bush) would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone at a time when they most needed him because he did not want to be distracted from listening to a child discussing her goat and its butting, thinking it was more important than the planes and their ramming of the skyscrapers. This gave us three times the time needed to carry out the operations, thanks be to God.

Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not attack us, will not be attacked either


Bin Ladin threatened the US with new attacks

Excerpts from Usama bin Ladin's speech

You can find this article at:

Following are excerpts from a speech by al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in a video tape, parts of which were aired by Aljazeera television:

"O American people, I am speaking to tell you about the ideal way to avoid another Manhattan, about war and its causes and results.

"Security is an important foundation of human life and free people do not squander their security, contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not attack Sweden for example.

"It is known that those who hate freedom do not possess proud souls like those of the 19, may God rest their souls. We fought you because we are free and because we want freedom for our nation. When you squander our security we squander yours.

"I am surprised by you. Despite entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened.

"It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American forces... thought listening to a child discussing her goat and its ramming was more important than the planes and their ramming of the skyscrapers"

"God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers but after the situation became unbearable and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed -- when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the US Sixth Fleet.

"In those difficult moments many emotions came over me which are hard to describe, but which produced an overwhelming feeling to reject injustice and a strong determination to punish the unjust.

"As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way (and) to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women.

"We had no difficulty in dealing with Bush and his administration because they resemble the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half by the sons of kings ... They have a lot of pride, arrogance, greed and thievery.

"He (Bush) adopted despotism and the crushing of freedoms from Arab rulers and called it the Patriot Act under the guise of combating terrorism.....

"We had agreed with the (the Sept. 11) overall commander Mohammed Atta, may God rest his soul, to carry out all operations in 20 minutes before Bush and his administration take notice.

"It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American forces (Bush) would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone at a time when they most needed him because he thought listening to a child discussing
her goat and its ramming was more important than the planes and their ramming of the skyscrapers. This had given us three times the time needed to carry out the operations, thanks be to God...

"Your security is not in the hands of (Democratic presidential candidate John) Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and each state which does not harm our security will remain safe."




Well Dick, let's hope you're right once again


HERE'S a two-part test to determine who will win on Tuesday:

a) Ask yourself: What is the issue we are talking about these days? Are we focused on terrorism and Iraq, or on health care and jobs? The answer is obvious: terrorism and Iraq.

b) Now look at the polls. Not the page that shows who they're voting for. That changes every hour. Look at the page that asks, "Which candidate do you think would do the best job of handling the war in Iraq?"

The answer is always President Bush, usually by 10 points. And right below that, on "Which candidate do you think would do the best job of handling the War on Terror?" Bush leads again, usually by 20 points.

If the issue is terrorism and Iraq, and Bush wins those issues by double digits, then the winner will be . . . voila, Bush!

John Kerry was on the verge of moving out to a victory after the third debate. Taking advantage of its pre-ordained focus on domestic issues, he had finally, finally swung the debate back to the issues on which he has — and has always had — a lead: domestic policy. Next he got a short-term bounce from Bill Clinton's presence on the campaign trail and seemed on his way to closing the Bush lead.

Then came the "disappearing explosives" story. Kerry's handlers, tacticians to the last, disregarded the needs of basic strategy and hopped on the issue with all four feet, running a TV ad lambasting Bush for losing the weapons after the invasion.

Strategically, this flawed decision assured that the final week of the campaign would focus on the areas of Bush's strength and Kerry's weakness: Iraq and terrorism. Tactically, it tied the electorate's confidence in John Kerry to the mystery of what actually happened in an ammo dump in the desert 18 months ago.

Then it began to explode in Kerry's face. Soon we heard that there were only three tons of explosives . . . and they weren't there when we occupied the dump . . . and they were removed by the Russians before we got there . . . and, perhaps, there are satellite photos to prove it.

All of a sudden, Kerry seems just not ready for prime time.

The backfire is amplified by the involvement of CBS and The New York Times. The plans of "60 Minutes" and Dan Rather to break the story on the Sunday before the election reflect overt partisan bias — an overt conspiracy of these leading outlets to stack the deck in favor of Kerry.

This controversy unraveling in front of us all, replete with conspiracy theories and denouement of media bias, is enough to occupy our attention and rivet our focus as Election Day approaches. It will drive all other stories off the front pages and will make the war in Iraq the key element in the election.

At this writing, the possibility that the alleged al Qaeda tape virtually endorsing Kerry will hit the airwaves makes one even more confident of a Bush victory. A threat to let blood run in the streets of America if Bush wins won't intimidate voters, but rather remind them of the importance of sending a warrior to fight the terrorists — and seal Bush's victory.


Independent UK:Ugly, tasteless, terrifying and wild... Count me in

While I may disagree with his politics--he is funny!

He's been America's most unorthodox political commentator for more than 30 years. But for Dr Hunter S Thompson the Bush presidency is evil beyond belief - and judgement is nigh

The genetically vicious nature of presidential campaigns in America is too obvious to argue with, but some people call it fun, and I am one of them. Election day - especially when it's a presidential election - is always a wild and terrifying time for politics junkies, and I am one of those, too. We look forward to major election days like sex addicts look forward to orgies. We are slaves to them.

Which is not a bad thing, all in all, for the winners. They are not the ones who bitch and whine about slavery when the votes are finally counted and the losers are forced to get down on their knees. No. The slaves who emerge victorious from these drastic public decisions go crazy with joy and plunge each other into deep tubs of chilled Cristal champagne with naked strangers who want to be close to a winner.

That is how it works in the victory business. You see it every time. The weak suck up to the strong, for fear of losing their jobs and money and all the fickle power they wielded only 24 hours ago. It is like suddenly losing your wife and your home in a vagrant poker game, then having to go on the road with whoremongers and beg for your dinner in public. Nobody wants to hire a loser. Right? They stink of doom and defeat.

"What is that horrible smell in the office, Tex? It's making me sick."

"That is the smell of a loser, senator. He came in to apply for a job, but we tossed him out immediately. Sgt Sloat took him down to the parking lot and taught him a lesson he will never forget."

"Good work, Tex. And how are you coming with my new enemies list? I want them all locked up. They are scum."

"We will punish them brutally. They are terrorist sympathisers, and most of them voted against you. I hate those bastards."

"Thank you, Sloat. You are a faithful servant. Come over here and kneel down. I want to reward you."

That is the nature of high-risk politics. Veni, vidi, vici, especially among Republicans. It's like the ancient Bedouin saying: "As the camel falls to its knees, more knives are drawn."

Presidential politics is a vicious business, even for rich white men, and anybody who gets into it should be prepared to grapple with the meanest of the mean. The White House has never been seized by timid warriors. There are no rules, and the roadside is littered with wreckage. That is why they call it the passing lane. Just ask any candidate who ever ran against George Bush - Al Gore, Ann Richards, John McCain - all of them ambushed and vanquished by lies and dirty tricks. And all of them still whining about it.

That is why George W Bush is President of the United States, and Al Gore is not. Bush simply wanted it more, and he was willing to demolish anything that got in his way, including the US Supreme Court. It is not by accident that the Bush White House (read: Dick Cheney & Halliburton Inc) controls all three branches of our federal government today. They are powerful thugs who would far rather die than lose the election in November.

The Republican establishment is haunted by painful memories of what happened to Old Man Bush in 1992. He peaked too early, and he had no response to "It's the economy, stupid." Which has always been the case. Every GOP administration since 1952 has let the Military-Industrial Complex loot the Treasury and plunge the nation into debt on the excuse of a wartime economic emergency. Richard Nixon comes quickly to mind, along with Ronald Reagan and his ridiculous "trickle-down" theory of US economic policy. If the rich get richer, the theory goes, before long their pots will overflow and somehow "trickle down" to the poor, who would rather eat scraps off the Bush family plates than eat nothing at all. Republicans have never approved of democracy, and they never will. It goes back to pre-industrial America, when only white male property owners could vote.

Things haven't changed much where George W Bush comes from. Houston is a cruel, crazy town on a filthy river in East Texas with no zoning laws and a culture of sex, money and violence. It's a shabby, sprawling metropolis ruled by brazen women, crooked cops and super-rich pansexual cowboys who live by the code of the West - which can mean just about anything you need it to mean, in a pinch.

Houston is also the unnatural home of two out of the last three presidents of the United States of America, for good or ill. The other one was a handsome, sex-crazed boy from next-door Arkansas, which has no laws against any deviant practice not specifically forbidden in the New Testament, including anal incest and public cunnilingus with farm animals.

Back in 1948, during his first race for the US Senate, Lyndon Johnson was running about 10 points behind, with only nine days to go. He was desperate. And it was just before noon on a Monday, they say, when he called his equally depressed campaign manager and told him to call a press conference for just before lunch on a slow news day and accuse his high-riding opponent, a pig farmer, of having routine carnal knowledge of his sows, despite the pleas of his wife and children.

His campaign manager was shocked. "We can't say that, Lyndon," he supposedly said. "You know that it isn't true."

"Of course it's not!" Johnson barked. "But let's make the bastard deny it!"

Johnson - a Democrat, like Bill Clinton - won that election by fewer than 100 votes, and after that he was home free. He went on to rule Texas and the US Senate for 20 years and to be the most powerful vice president in the history of the United States. Until now.

Armageddon came early for George Bush this year, and he was not ready for it. His long-awaited showdowns with John Kerry turned into a series of embarrassments that broke his nerve and demoralised his closest campaign advisers. They knew he would never recover, no matter how many votes they could steal for him in Florida, where the presidential debates were closely watched and widely celebrated by millions of Kerry supporters who suddenly had reason to feel like winners.

Kerry came into October as a five-point underdog with almost no chance of winning three out of three rigged confrontations with a treacherous little freak like George Bush. But the debates are over now, and the victor was John Kerry every time. He steamrollered Bush and left him for roadkill.

Did you see Bush on TV, trying to debate? Jesus, he talked like a donkey with no brains at all. The tide turned early, in Coral Gables, when Bush went belly up less than halfway through his first bout with Kerry, who hammered poor George into jelly. It was pitiful... I almost felt sorry for him, until I heard someone call him "Mister President", and then I felt ashamed.

Karl Rove, the President's political wizard, felt even worse. There is angst in the heart of Texas today, and panic in the bowels of the White House. Rove has a nasty little problem, and its name is George Bush. The president failed miserably from the instant he got onstage with John Kerry. He looked weak and dumb. Kerry beat him like a gong in Coral Gables, then again in St Louis and Tempe. That is Rove's problem. His candidate is a weak-minded frat boy who cracks under pressure in front of 60 million voters.

Bush signed his own death warrant in the opening round, when he finally had to speak without his teleprompter. It was a Cinderella story brought up to date in Florida that night - except this time, the false prince turned back into a frog.

Immediately after the first debate ended, I called Muhammad Ali at his home in Michigan, but whoever answered said the champ was laughing so hard that he couldn't come to the phone. "The debate really cracked him up," he chuckled. "The champ loves a good ass-whuppin'. He says Bush looked so scared to fight, he finally just quit and laid down."

This year's first presidential debate was such a disaster for George Bush that his handlers had to be crazy to let him get in the ring with John Kerry again. Yet Karl Rove let it happen, and we can only wonder why. But there is no doubt that the president has lost his nerve, and his career in the White House is finished. No mas.

Indeed. The numbers are weird today, and so is this dangerous election. The time has come to rumble, to inject a bit of fun into politics. That's exactly what the debates did. John Kerry looked like a winner, and it energised his troops. Voting for Kerry is starting to look like serious fun for everyone except poor George, who now looks like a loser. That is fatal in a presidential election.

I look at elections with the cool and dispassionate gaze of a professional gambler, especially when I'm betting real money on the outcome. Contrary to most conventional wisdom, I see Kerry with five points as a recommended risk. Kerry will win this election, if it happens, by a bigger margin than Bush finally gouged out of Florida in 2000. That was about 46 per cent, plus five points for owning the US Supreme Court - which seemed to equal 51 per cent. Nobody really believed that, but George W Bush moved into the White House anyway.

It was the most brutal seizure of power since Hitler burned the Reichstag in 1933 and declared himself the new boss of Germany. Karl Rove is no stranger to Nazi strategy, if only because it worked for a while, and it was sure fun for Hitler. But not for long. He ran out of oil, the whole world hated him, and he liked to gobble pure crystal biphetamine and stay awake for eight days in a row with his maps and bombers and his dope-addled general staff.

They all loved the whiff. It is the perfect drug for war, as long as you are winning, and Hitler thought he was king of the hill forever. He had created a new master race, and every one of them worshipped him. They were fanatics. That was 66 years ago, and things are not much different today. We still love war.

George Bush certainly does. In four short years he has turned our country from a prosperous nation at peace into a desperately indebted nation at war. But so what? He is the President of the United States, and you're not. Love it or leave it.


"Four more years of George Bush will be like four more years of syphilis," the famed author said yesterday at a hastily called press conference near his home in Woody Creek, Colorado.

"Only a fool or a sucker would vote for a dangerous loser like Bush. He hates everything we stand for, and he knows we will vote against him in November." Thompson, well known for the eerie accuracy of his political instincts, went on to denounce Ralph Nader as "a worthless Judas goat with no moral compass."

"I endorsed John Kerry a long time ago," he said, "and I will do everything in my power, short of roaming the streets with a meat hammer, to help him be the next president of the United States."

Which is true. I said all those things, and I will say them again. Of course I will vote for John Kerry. I have known him for 30 years as a good man with a brave heart - which is more than even the President's friends will tell you about George W Bush, who is also an old acquaintance from the white-knuckle days of yesteryear. He is hated all over the world, including large parts of Texas, and he is taking us all down with him. Bush is a natural-born loser with a filthy-rich daddy who pimped his son out to rich oil-mongers. He hates music, football and sex, and he is no fun at all.

I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, but I won't make that mistake again. The joke is over for Nader. He was funny once, but now he belongs to the dead. Nader is a fool, as is anybody who votes for him in November - with the obvious exception of professional Republicans who have paid big money to turn him into a world-famous Judas goat. Nader is so desperate that he's paying homeless people to gather signatures to get him on the ballot. In Pennsylvania, the petitions he submitted contained tens of thousands of phoney signatures, including Fred Flintstone, Mickey Mouse and John Kerry. A judge dumped Ralph from the ballot there, calling it "the most deceitful and fraudulent exercise ever perpetrated upon this court".

But they will keep his name on the ballot in the long-suffering Hurricane State, which is ruled by the President's younger brother, Jeb, who also wants to be the next president of the United States. In 2000, when they sent Jim Baker to Florida, I knew it was all over. In that election, 97,488 people voted for Nader in Florida, and Gore lost the state by 537 votes. You don't have to be from Texas to understand the moral of that story. It's like being out-coached in the Super Bowl. Only losers play fair, and all winners have blood on their hands.

Back in June, when John Kerry was beginning to feel like a winner, we had a quick rendezvous on a rain-soaked runway in Aspen, Colorado, where he was scheduled to meet a harem of wealthy campaign contributors. I told him that Bush's vicious goons in the White House are perfectly capable of assassinating Nader and blaming it on him. His staff laughed, but the Secret Service men didn't. Kerry suggested I might make a good running mate, and we reminisced about trying to end the Vietnam War in 1972.

That was the year I first met him, at a riot on that elegant little street in front of the White House. He was yelling into a bullhorn and I was trying to throw a dead rat over a black-spike fence and on to the President's lawn. We were angry and righteous in those days, and there were millions of us. We kicked two chief executives out because they were stupid warmongers. We conquered Lyndon Johnson and we stomped on Richard Nixon - which wise people said was impossible, but so what? It was fun. We were warriors then, and our tribe was strong like a river. That river is still running. All we have to do is get out and vote, while it's still legal, and we will wash those crooked warmongers out of the White House.


Al Jazeera:Muslim voters focus on Patriot Act

When the Islamists finally detonate a nuclear weapon in a city--and that IS coming--remember this--American Muslims are essentially voting against common-sense counter-terror measures--raising the fifth-column question

By Benjamin Duncan in Washington DC

American Muslims are expected to vote for their freedom

While national polls show the war on terrorism, Iraq and the economy are the top issues for most voters in the upcoming election, a majority of Muslim Americans are deeply concerned about their loss of basic freedoms over the past three years.

Like most Americans, Muslims are not single-issue voters. They worry about their wallets, access to affordable healthcare and quality education for their children.

This year, however, the issue of civil liberties has leapt to the forefront of an election in which large segments of the Muslim American community feel "under siege" from various federal security measures, representatives from several Muslim organisations say.

"The government, in affect, has significantly abridged the civil liberties of the Muslim community," said Agha Saeed, a spokesman for the American Muslim Task Force on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT), an umbrella organisation comprising 10 Muslim advocacy groups.

In particular, Muslim leaders cited the US Patriot Act as the principle source of tension and fear among members of their community.


Thursday, October 28, 2004

Latest Polls--Things Are Not Looking Good

Latest Battleground State Polls

Oct. 28, 2004
L.A. Times (likely voters)


Bush - 51%
Kerry - 43%
Nader - 2%


Kerry - 50%
Bush - 44%


Bush - 49%
Kerry - 47%


17 electoral votes (Gore won in 2000 by 5.2 percentage points)
Mitchell Research & Communications for the Detroit News, Oct. 21, 25-26, 601 likely voters, margin of error +/-4 (results from Oct. 18-20 Mitchell poll in parentheses)
Kerry-Edwards, 47 percent (43)
Bush-Cheney, 42 percent (46)
Nader-Camejo, 1 percent, (1)
Unsure, 10 percent (10)


10 electoral votes, (Gore won in 2000 by 2.4 percentage points)
University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute, Oct. 21-26, 690 LV, MoE +/-4
Bush-Cheney, 47 percent
Kerry-Edwards, 44 percent
Nader-Camejo, 5 percent
Unsure, 4 percent

St. Cloud State University, Oct. 17-26, 673 LV, MoE +/-4
Kerry-Edwards, 49 percent
Bush-Cheney, 42 percent
Nader-Camejo, 2 percent
Unsure, 7 percent


Quinnipiac, Oct. 22-26, 909 LV, MoE +/-4
(Results from mid-October poll in parentheses)
Bush-Cheney, 49 percent (46)
Kerry-Edwards, 47 percent (51)
Unsure, 4 percent (5)

Zogby: Kerry Increasing

Kerry in front in 5 states (CO, MN, OH, PA, WI);

Bush drops to lead in only 3 states (FL, NM, NV);

Tied in Michigan (47%-47%), Iowa (45%-45%)
President Bush now trails Sen. Kerry in Ohio, a state critical to Republican ambitions, according to the latest Reuters/Zogby 10-state battleground poll.

Reliably Democrat Michigan is also now in play, with the candidates tied at 47% apiece. The telephone polls of approximately 600 likely voters per state were conducted from Sunday through Wednesday (October 24-27, 2004). The margin of error is +/- 4.1 percentage points.

The fight for the Oval Office comes down to:


Bush 46%
Kerry 50%


Bush 48%
Kerry 46%


Bush 45%
Kerry 45%


Bush 47%
Kerry 47%


Bush 44%
Kerry 47%

New Mexico

Bush 47%
Kerry 44%


Bush 51%
Kerry 44%


Bush 45%
Kerry 46%


Bush 46%
Kerry 49%


Bush 46%
Kerry 50%

Oct. 27, 2004

Bush Catches Kerry in New Jersey

Al Gore won the state in 2000 by 15.8 percentage points. But now:

Quinnipiac, Oct. 21-25,852 LV, MoE +/-3.5

(Results from Quinnipiac poll a week ago in parentheses)

Bush-Cheney, 46 percent (45)

Kerry-Edwards, 46 percent (49)

Nader-Camejo, 2 percent (1)

Unsure, 6 percent (4)

Zogby Battleground

--Kerry Ahead in 5 States (CO, MN, PA, MI, WI)

--Bush Still Leads in 4 States (FL, NM, NV, OH)

--Tied in Iowa (45% Each)

Iowa and Wisconsin have moved out of President Bush’s column, with Senator Kerry picking up the latter, in the latest Reuters/Zogby ten-state battleground poll.


Bush 47%

Kerry 49%


Bush 49%

Kerry 45%


Bush 45%

Kerry 45%


Bush 44%

Kerry 49%


Bush 44%

Kerry 46%

New Mexico

Bush 48%

Kerry 43%


Bush 49%

Kerry 46%


Bush 46%

Kerry 44%


Bush 45%

Kerry 49%


Bush 46%

Kerry 48%

Oct. 26, 2004

USA Today/CNN/Gallup:


Bush - 52%
Kerry - 43%


Bush - 48%
Kerry - 49%


Bush - 46%
Kerry - 51%


Bush - 49%
Kerry - 43%


Bush - 51%
Kerry - 45%


Bush - 43%
Kerry - 49%


Bush - 47%
Kerry - 45%

New Mexico

Bush - 46%
Kerry - 48%


Bush - 49%
Kerry - 47%


Bush - 50%
Kerry - 44%



Bush 47%
Kerry 48%


Bush 48%
Kerry 47%


Bush 47%
Kerry 44%


Bush 43%
Kerry 52%


Bush 43%
Kerry 48%

New Mexico

Bush 50%
Kerry 42%


Bush 40%
Kerry 44%


Bush 46%
Kerry 45%


Bush 45%
Kerry 48%


Bush 48%
Kerry 46%

Hawaii becomes a battleground state

Oct. 25th, 2004


(Reno Gazette-Journal and KRNV-TV)

Bush - 49%
Kerry - 47%

(Las Vegas Sun, KLAS-TV and KNPR)

Bush - 45%
Kerry's 41%

Oct. 24, 2004

Zogby Battleground Polls


Bush 45%
Kerry 49%


Bush 49%
Kerry 46%


Bush 47%
Kerry 45%


Bush 42%
Kerry 52%


Bush 45%

New Mexico

Bush 49%
Kerry 44%


Bush 48%
Kerry 44%


Bush 47%
Kerry 42%


Bush 45%
Kerry 47%


Bush 48%
Kerry 45%

Ohio: Kerry Takes Lead

Ohio University's Scripps Survey Research Center Poll found:

Bush 43%

Kerry 49%

Other 1%

Undecided 3%

Florida: Dead Heat

The latest St. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald poll shows:

Bush 46%

Kerry 46%

Nader 1%

Undecided 7%

Oct. 22, 2004

Story Continues Below

Ohio: Kerry Gaining

Kerry 48

Bush 47

Nader 1

Fla.: Kerry Closes Lead

Democratic challenger John Kerry has nearly closed a seven-point gap among Florida likely voters and now trails President George W. Bush, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

Bush 48

Kerry 47

Nader 1

Iowa: Bush Takes Big Lead

A Survey USA Poll finds:

Bush 51

Kerry 46


Pakistan's disturbing nuclear trail

Please read and subscribe to the Christian Science Monitor which has some of the best writing you will see--far superior to agenda-driven drivel like the New York Times

Materials from A.Q. Khan's black-market nuclear network remain unaccounted for.
By Faye Bowers | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – It's been a year since US and British agents boarded a German ship in the Mediterranean Sea that led to the exposure of the unimaginable: a vast black-market nuclear arms bazaar operating under superpower radar for more than a decade.
Today, investigators from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and some 20 countries working together have uncovered many parts of the clandestine network run by the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, Abdul Qadeer Khan. Just in the past month, three more people who allegedly acted as middlemen were arrested in South Africa.
The records confiscated from these men's companies, together with other confiscated documents and information from Dr. Khan and his top aides, have led to the virtual shutdown of the clandestine network.
But government officials and experts say that in today's world, where both major presidential candidates say nuclear proliferation is the nation's most critical security threat, much more needs to be done.
"Overall, the Khan network is the biggest nonproliferation disaster of the nuclear age," says Matthew Bunn, a nuclear expert at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. "It is certainly good news that at least the beginning of breaking up that network has occurred. Unfortunately, a substantial number of players in that network are still walking around free people."
Those walking free are probably additional businessmen, still unidentified, with specific technical capabilities to manufacture parts for centrifuges, the machines used to enrich uranium, a necessary ingredient for a nuclear bomb.
Moreover, Dr. Khan and his top aides remain free, or at least semi-free. Although Khan publicly admitted his guilt this past February, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf pardoned him. Khan is said to be under house arrest in five costly mansions. His top aides are free as well, their movements apparently monitored.
Neither US nor IAEA investigators have been given access to Khan and his aides - a huge problem, investigators say, because they need to know if other countries besides Libya, North Korea, and Iran were offered Khan's plans and/or technology. For example, investigators in Iraq found records indicating that before the 1991 Gulf War, Khan offered Saddam Hussein, through a middleman, the same blueprints that he provided Libya.
Pakistani officials have interviewed Khan and his aides, and have "provided some information," says a Western diplomat close to the IAEA. "But they could provide much more."
Far more useful, say experts familiar with the network, have been documents confiscated in the raids on the various companies tied to the network - in Germany, Switzerland, Turkey, Malaysia, Dubai, and South Africa.
The IAEA, the nuclear watchdog arm of the United Nations, has no leverage on Pakistani officials. The United States is widely seen as the only country with the clout to pressure Pakistan.
But Washington walks a fine line with Islamabad: It must avoid alienating the country, since it's crucial to the US war on terror. At the same time, however, by backing the Musharraf regime too much, the US could inflame Islamic radicals in the country, leading to the government's overthrow. Relations between the two nations are tenuous.
Still, on balance, many experts think the US could do more to persuade Pakistan to let IAEA investigators interview Khan. "For the US to leverage Musharraf so the IAEA could talk to Khan, how does that destabilize Pakistan?" asks David Albright, president of the Institute of Science and International Security in Washington.
US government officials, for their part, won't talk about how much information Musharraf has handed over, nor how much pressure they are applying. A CIA official said the State Department is the government's focal point for tracking the network. Secretary of State Colin Powell has only said he's speaking with Musharraf, who is cooperating.
Still, investigators and officials are concerned that Khan's plans and technology may have been passed to other unknown people or countries.
One top concern: Critical parts for the centrifuge remain unaccounted for, even though individuals and companies in some 30 countries have been apprehended and searched, IAEA officials say. That suggests that other companies or people, still not caught, may be able to produce the missing parts.
"There's no sense that all the information this network possessed - gas centrifuge or nuclear weapons design or fabrication - has been recovered," says Dr. Albright. "It's still out there and could be offered to others."
"The most disturbing sign found in Libya was the bomb blueprints," says the Western diplomat close to the IAEA. "Is there some hard disk somewhere that has all these designs and where are they?"
Melissa Fleming, an IAEA spokeswoman, says an intensive probe is under way. "We need to determine who all the players were, what was involved, who the customers were, and to what extent it has now been busted or contained."


Wednesday, October 27, 2004

South Asia Tribune: October Surprise--Bin Laden Sighting!

Don't you know John Kerry's goon squad is praying right now:
South Asia Tribune

Indians Put Security Forces on Red Alert After Ben Laden Sighting in Laddakh

By Arun Rajnath

NEW DELHI, October 25: Fugitive Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has been spotted in the Tibet-Laddakh region, close to the North-Eastern tip of Pakistan, bordering India and China, Indian and US officials believe.

A high-ranking official of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) flew from Islamabad on Sunday to meet top Indian officials here in Delhi after reports of Bin Laden’s presence in the region.

According to sources, following the meeting between Indian security bosses and the FBI, the New Delhi Government has put its security forces in the North Western region, specially the Kashmir Valley, on 'red alert.'

Vigilance on the Kargil-Leh Highway and area along the Tibetan border has also been increased. Security forces are likely to undertake combing operations in the Laddakh region before the start of snowfall.

These sources in the Indian Home Ministry told this correspondent that intelligence agencies had received information that Bin Laden has been spotted traveling. Some such reports were also published in a section of the Pakistan media.

Sources say the FBI official flew into Delhi from Pakistan to hold talks with Indian officials in New Delhi. At their meeting, chiefs of the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), intelligence units of the Border Security Force (BSF), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and Indian Army officers were present.

Indian officials believe Bin Laden may have reached Laddakh from the Pak administrated Kashmir where they think he may have been helped by some Jihadi or even sympathetic elements in the Pakistani forces.

Officials are also expressing concern over increased activity of foreign nationals along the LoC. Though there are no concrete reports on Pak Army’s support to these foreign nationals, Indian Home Ministry officials feel that some supporters in the ISI may be providing help. An ISI official, Ejaz Khan, has already been identified by the Indian security agencies for helping militants to cross over into the Indian territory.

Officials working with different security agencies said though the border fence along the LoC, which was expected to be completed this year, had raised hurdles for the infiltrators, militants manage to sneak into the Indian territory from across Poonch and Rajauri.

Meanwhile, five additional battalions of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and Border Security Force (BSF) have been called in to fortify all spots of tourist interest besides camps and bases of the Army. Multi-tier anti-infiltration arrangements have been made. The ITBP has also been put on full alert.


Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: Kerry 257 Bush 274 has Bush leading Kerry by 274 to 257


Tuesday, October 26, 2004

New York Times, CBS, Joseph Goebels, Democrats, Orwell: You can hear the left-wing jack boots marching

I, for one, will be glad when this election is over. We have deviated greatly from the idea of an informed, intelligent electorate making any kind of rational decision about ANY candidate. For the most part, the mainstream media have aided it. The list of PROPAGANDA and FRAUD spewing from The New York Times, CBS and others should trouble any thinking person--however as many of my democratic friends have told me--ANYTHING goes this year in beating Bush and lies, political propaganda and the media twisting stories and committing fraud is justified. Should John Kerry win, remember your logic for his one term!

The newest journalistic fraud served up by the New York Times, and given to the Kerry campaign was about the missing explosives--there is only one catch--the explosives were missing before the Americans arrived .... fortunately, NBC reported on the story as it unfolded.

We can only hope that al Qaida takes out both CBS News and The New York Times sometime in the future. They are nothing more than propaganda outlets for the Democratic party.

(CNN) -- The mystery surrounding the disappearance of 380 tons of powerful explosives from a storage depot in Iraq has taken a new twist, after a network embedded with the U.S. military during the invasion of Iraq reported that the material had already vanished by the time American troops arrived.

NBC News reported that on April 10, 2003, its crew was embedded with the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division when troops arrived at the Al Qaqaa storage facility south of Baghdad.

While the troops found large stockpiles of conventional explosives, they did not find HMX or RDX, the types of powerful explosives that reportedly went missing, according to NBC.

The International Atomic Energy Agency revealed Monday that it had been told two weeks ago by the Iraqi government that 380 tons of HMX and RDX disappeared from Al Qaqaa after Saddam Hussein's government fell.

In a letter to the IAEA dated October 10, Iraq's director of planning, Mohammed Abbas, said the material disappeared sometime after Saddam's regime fell in April 2003, which he attributed to "the theft and looting of the governmental installations due to lack of security."

Baghdad fell on April 9, 2003. According to NBC, troops from the 101st Airborne arrived the next day to find that the material was already gone.

Prior to the Iraq war, the high-grade explosives at Al Qaqaa had been under the control of IAEA inspectors because the material could be used as a component in a nuclear weapon, IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said. IAEA and other U.N. inspectors left the country in March 2003 before the fighting began on March 19.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Monday that five days after the IAEA received the letter from the Iraqi government, the agency alerted U.S. officials in Vienna, who in turn told National Security Director Condoleezza Rice. She then alerted Bush, McClellan said.

Once U.S. officials were alerted, the multinational force in Iraq and the Iraq Survey Group, charged with hunting for weapons in Iraq, were both ordered to investigate what was missing and the possible circumstances, according to State Department spokesman Adam Ereli.

"We, from the very beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, did everything we could to secure arms caches throughout the country," Ereli said. "But given the number of arms and the number of caches and the extent of militarization of Iraq, it was impossible to provide 100 percent security for 100 percent of the sites, quite frankly."

The news of the missing explosives followed an IAEA report earlier this month that said high-end, dual-use machinery that could be used in a nuclear weapons program was missing from Iraq's nuclear facilities. (Full story)

"Our immediate concern is that if the explosives did fall into the wrong hands, they could be used to commit terrorist acts and some of the bombings that we've seen," the IAEA's Fleming said.

She described Al Qaqaa as "massive" and said it is one of the most well-known storage sites. Besides the explosives, it also held large caches of artillery.

Fleming said the IAEA, which is based in Vienna, Austria, did not know whether some of the explosives may have been used in past attacks.

The IAEA said that before the war it inspected the Al Qaqaa facility multiple times and verified that the material was present in January 2003. The agency said the material was mentioned in reports to the U.N. Security Council that were made public.

Ereli said coalition forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the Al Qaqaa facility after the war for weapons of mass destruction. The troops found none, but did see indications of looting, he said. Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, 2003.

"Some explosive material at the time was discovered, although none of it carried IAEA seals, and this discovery was reported to coalition forces for removal of the material," Ereli said.

Ereli said coalition forces have cleared 10,033 weapons caches and destroyed 243,000 tons of munitions. Another 162,898 tons of munitions are at secure locations and awaiting destruction, he said.

A senior administration official played down the importance of the missing explosives, describing them as dangerous material but "stuff you can buy anywhere."

The official noted that the administration did not see this necessarily as a "proliferation risk."

"In the grand scheme -- and on a grand scale -- there are hundreds of tons of weapons, munitions, artillery, explosives that are unaccounted for in Iraq," the official said.

"And like the Pentagon has said, there is really no way the U.S. military could safeguard all of these weapons depots or find all of these missing materials."

The official said the Iraq Survey Group concluded that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and documented the scope of the problem.

Threat from terrorists
A European diplomat told The New York Times that Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA, is "extremely concerned" about the potentially "devastating consequences" of the vanished stockpile.

"The immediate danger" of the lost stockpiles is its potential use by insurgents to make small, but powerful, bombs, an expert told the Times. The expert said the explosives could be transported easily across the Middle East.

According to the Times, the stockpiles missing from Al Qaqaa are the strongest and fastest in common use by militaries around the globe.

The Iraqi letter to the IAEA identified the vanished explosives as containing 194.7 metric tons of HMX, or "high melting point explosive," 141.2 metric tons of RDX, or "rapid detonation explosive," among other designations, and 5.8 metric tons of PETN, or "pentaerythritol tetranitrate."

Fleming said the IAEA, whose mission is to keep track of everything with potential nuclear weapons applications, had been monitoring about 100 sites in Iraq, but there were only a few of special concern, including Al Qaqaa.

"This is a real massive quantity of explosives that could have reached the hands of insurgents and could be used with deadly force and consequences against people in Iraq," Fleming said.

"One would have to assume it's been stolen by someone who has some sort of nefarious purpose for it."

Political fallout
With the U.S. presidential election eight days away, news of the missing explosives quickly became campaign fodder.

Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry immediately seized on the information to accuse President Bush of incompetence in failing to secure the material, charging that "this is one of the great blunders of Iraq and one of the great blunders of this administration."

But in the wake of the NBC report, the Bush campaign fired off a statement saying that Kerry's criticism of the president over the missing material has "been proven false before the day is over."

"John Kerry's attacks today were baseless," Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said. "He said American troops did not secure the explosives, when the explosives were already missing."

Schmidt also said that Kerry "neglects to mention the 400,000 tons of weapons and explosives that are either destroyed or in the process of being destroyed" in Iraq.

But Kerry senior adviser Joe Lockhart fired back with a statement of his own, accusing the Bush campaign of "distorting" the NBC News report.

"In a shameless attempt to cover up its failure to secure 380 tons of highly explosive material in Iraq, the White House is desperately flailing in an effort to escape blame," Lockhart said. "It is the latest pathetic excuse from an administration that never admits a mistake, no matter how disastrous."

Lockhart did not elaborate on how the Bush campaign was distorting the NBC report.

CNN's Suzanne Malveaux and Elise Labott contributed to this report


Monday, October 25, 2004

New York Sun Editorial: The Faces of Denial

by Ralph Peters

October 24, 2004 -- EUROPEANS insist that the United States overreacted to 9/11. Conde scendingly, they observe that they've been dealing with terror ism successfully for three dec ades, that it can be managed, that life goes on.
They're wrong.

What Europeans fail to grasp — what they willfully refuse to face — is that the nature of terrorism has changed.

The alphabet-soup terrorists of the past — the IRA, ETA, PLO, RAF and the rest — were essentially political organizations with political goals. No matter how brutal their actions or unrealistic their hopes, their common intent was to change a system of government, either to gain a people's independence or to force their ideology on society.

The old-school terrorists that Europe survived did not seek death, although they were sometimes willing to die for their causes. None were suicide bombers, although a few committed suicide in prison to make a political statement.

Crucially, their goals were of this earth. All would have preferred to survive to rule in a government that they controlled.

Now we face terrorists who regard death as a promotion — who reject secular ideologies and believe themselves to be instruments of their god's will.

Indeed, they hope to nudge their god along, to convince him through their actions that the final struggle between faith and infidelity is at hand. While they'd like to see certain changes here on earth — the destruction of Israel, of the United States, of the West, of unbelievers and heretics everywhere — their longed-for destination is paradise beyond the grave.

THE new terrorists are vastly more dangerous, more implacable and crueler than the old models. The political terrorists of the 1970s and '80s used bloodshed to gain their goals. Religious terrorists see mass murder as an end in itself, as a purifying act that cleanses the world of infidels. They don't place their bombs for political leverage, but to kill as many innocent human beings as possible.

Yesteryear's murderers of European politicians and businessmen by the old crowd seem almost mannerly compared to today's religion-fueled terrorists, who openly rejoice in decapitating their living victims in front of cameras.

When political terrorists hijacked airplanes, they hoped to draw attention to their cause. When Islamic terrorists seize passenger jets, they do it to kill as many people as possible.

The old terrorists were sometimes so rabid that they had to be killed or imprisoned. But others became negotiating partners for governments. From Yasser Arafat to Gerry Adams, some gained international respectability. (It even may be argued that Adams became part of the solution, rather than simply remaining part of the problem.)

For today's apocalyptic terrorists, negotiations are no more than a tool to be used in extreme situations, to allow them to live to kill again another day. And no promises made to infidels need be honored.

The Islamic terrorists we now face will never become statesmen. They wish to shed our blood to fortify their faith, to impose their beliefs upon the world, to placate a vengeful god.

That doesn't offer much room for polite diplomacy. Islamic terrorists have reverted to the most primitive of religious practices: human sacrifice. Their brand of Islam is no "religion of peace." They're Aztecs without the art. And it takes a Cortez to deal with them.

Europeans' experience of negotiating with political terrorists has allowed them to deceive themselves into a false sense of security. Forgetting the pain inflicted on their societies by tiny bands of assassins (whether the Baader-Meinhof gang, the Red Brigades or the IRA-Provos), Europeans refuse to imagine what tens of thousands of fanatics bent on destruction might do if not faced down with courage and resolution.

It wasn't the United States that didn't "get" 9/11. It was the Europeans, anxious that their comfortable slumber not be disturbed. They insist that terrorism remains a law-enforcement problem, refusing even to consider that we might face a broad, complex, psychotic threat spawned by a failed civilization.

EUROPE will pay. And the price in the coming years will be much higher than any paid by the United States. Europe, not North America, is the vulnerable continent. Our homeland-security efforts, unfairly derided at home and abroad, are making our country markedly safer. Yes, we will be struck again. But "Old Europe" is going to be hit again, and again, and again.

American Muslims not only become citizens — they become good citizens. Despite the assimilation hurdles that face every new group of immigrants, our Muslims have opportunity and hope. A disaffected few may make headlines, but American Muslims overwhelmingly support their new country and do not wish it harm. They see no contradiction between faith in their god and faith in America. Our worries are their worries, and their dreams are our dreams.

Europe is another, grimmer story. Not a single European state — not even the United Kingdom — has successfully integrated its Muslim minority into mainstream society.

While the United Kingdom has done the best job, countries such as France and Germany have time-bombs in their midst, large, excluded Muslim populations that the native majority regard as hopelessly inferior. If you want to see bigotry alive and well, visit "Old Europe."

It wasn't a random choice on the part of the 9/11 terrorists that led them to do so much of their preparation in Europe. They know that American-Muslim communities won't offer hospitality to terrorists. But Germany, France, Spain and neighboring states contain embittered Islamic communities glad to see any part of the West get the punishment it "deserves."

As the United States becomes ever harder to strike — and as we respond so fiercely to those attacks that succeed — soft Europe, with its proximity to the Muslim world, its indigestible Muslim communities and its moral fecklessness, is likely to become the key Western battleground in the Islamic extremists' war against civilization.

Europeans don't want it to be so. But they are not going to get a choice.

Europeans are simply in denial. They've lived so well for so long that they don't want the siesta from reality to end. One of the many reasons that continental Europeans reacted so angrily to our liberation of Iraq was that it made it harder than ever for them to sustain their myth of a benign world in which peace could be purchased and the government welfare checks would never stop coming.

America's crime was to acknowledge reality. It will be a long time before Europeans forgive us.

IN many ways, the civilizations of North America and Europe are diverging. Eu rope has a crisis of values behind its failure of will. Their anxiety to tell everyone else what to do reflects their own uncertainty. Corrupt, selfish and cowardly, old Europe has fallen to moral lows not seen since 1945.

The one factor that will finally bring us closer again is terrorism.

In this horrid election year, we've heard endless complaints that Washington needs allies. Of course, we already have many allies. The old-thinkers just mean France and Germany. But the truth is that France and Germany — weak, blind, duplicitous and inept — will need us far more than we could ever need them.

The nature of terrorism has changed profoundly. It's no longer about ideology, but about slaughter for its own sake. Nothing we could do would placate these terrorists. They must be fought and destroyed, no matter how many decades that requires. For Europe to pretend otherwise harms the general counter-terror effort. But, above all, it sets Europe up for calamity.

Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World."


In the Mideast, Bush dared to be different

Here's another viewpoint than Pat's, Michael's or mine.

by Daniel Pipes
Philadelphia Inquirer

The Middle East has so defined the presidency of George W. Bush that historians will, I expect, judge him primarily according to his actions there. And so, too, will American voters in just more than a week, when they go to the polls.

It has not been fully appreciated that, when it comes to the Middle East, Bush has systematically responded to the region's problems by dispatching decades' worth of accepted practices and replacing them with stunningly different approaches. In contrast, John Kerry unimaginatively holds to failed policies of the past.

Bush has upturned U.S. policy in four main areas.

War rather than law enforcement. From the beginning of Islamist violence against Americans in 1979 (including the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran, for 444 days), Washington responded by seeing this as a criminal problem and responded by deploying detectives, lawyers, judges and wardens. On Sept. 11, 2001, itself, Bush declared that we are engaged in a "war against terrorism." Note the word war. This meant deploying the military and the intelligence services, in addition to law enforcement. In contrast, Kerry has repeatedly said he would return to the law-enforcement model.

Democracy rather than stability. "Sixty years of Western nations' excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe." This declaration, made by Bush in November 2003, rejected a bipartisan policy focused on stability that had been in place since World War II. Bush has posed a challenge to established ways such as one expects to hear from a university seminar, not from a political leader. In contrast, Kerry prefers the dull, old, discredited model of stability.

Preemption rather than deterrence. In June 2002, Bush brushed aside the long-standing policy of deterrence, replacing it with the more active approach of eliminating enemies before they can strike. U.S. security, he said, "will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives." This new approach justified the war to remove Saddam Hussein from power before he could attack the United States. In contrast, Kerry waffles on this issue, usually coming out in favor of the old deterrence model.

Leadership rather than reaction in setting the goals for an Arab-Israeli settlement. In June 2003, I dubbed Bush's revamping of U.S. policy to the Arab-Israeli conflict perhaps "the most surprising and daring step of his presidency." Rather than leave it to the parties to decide on their pace, Bush came up with a timetable. Rather than accepting existing leaders, he sidelined Yasir Arafat. Rather than leaving it to the parties to define the final status, he made a Palestinian state the solution. Rather than keep himself out of negotiations until the very end, Bush inserted himself from the start. In contrast, Kerry would go back to the Oslo process and try again the tired and failed effort to win results by having the Israelis negotiate with Arafat.

I have some reservations about the Bush approach, and especially what strikes me as the President's highly personal reading of the Arab-Israeli conflict, but I admire how he has responded to what clearly are the country's worst external problems with energy and creativity. His exceptional willingness to take risks and shake up the malign status quo in the Middle East stands a good chance of working.

It is easy to overlook Bush's radicalism in the Middle East, for in spirit he is a conservative, someone inclined to preserve what is best of the past. A conservative, however, understands that to protect what he cherishes at times requires creative activism and tactical agility.

In contrast, although John Kerry is the liberal, someone ready to discard the old and experiment with the new, when it comes to the Middle East, he has, through his Senate career and in the presidential campaign, shown a preference to stick with the tried and true, even if these are not working.

Ironically, when it comes to the Middle East, it's Bush the radical versus Kerry the reactionary.


American Conservative Exec Editor Endorses KERRY!

That's right. The Executive Editor of Pat Buchanan's own magazine has endorsed John Kerry for president. In spite of more hysterical squawking from William about how "dangerous" liberals are, the Bush team's radical ideology, faith-based rejection of evidence and facts, complete incuriosity about the world, and staggering incompetence have driven Scott McConnell to write:

"Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal—Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can’t be found to do it—and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail."

It may well be that we SHOULD re-elect Bush. The stakes are too high to let the religious right and radical neocons have another go at it. We need four more years of faith-based foreign policy, imperial ambition, foolish bungling, and administrative incompetence to turn the electorate. Much of Bush's support comes from a fabulously ignorant Republican base. PIPA discovered that the VAST majority of Republican voters in the US are either completely ignorant of the achknowledged facts about Iraq, the economy, healthcare, and the environment, or, perhaps worse, don't even know what President Bush's positions are. For example, according to PIPA, most Republicans in the US say that IF Iraq had no WMD and was NOT involved in the 9/11 attacks, they would not support the war--but they believe that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD and that Saddam Hussein helped to plan and execute the 9/11 attacks! Bush and Cheney have both acknowledged--sort of--that neither of these is true, but their brainless supporters don't know it. 51% of the Republicans surveyed by PIPA believe that Bush is in favor of the Kyoto Treaty. That's over half!

Think about it this way:
1) The next major terrorist attack on US soil during the second Bush term.
2) Iraq elects a Shiite government.
3) the newly, duely, DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED government of Iraq tells the US to get out.
4) Iraq allies with Iran and begins to pump oil again, selling it to hungry world markets at nearly $60/bbl.
5) US military forces, including weakened Reserve and Guard units, unable to support major violence in Iraq and a Bush-ordered invasion of Syria or Iran--Congress has no choice but to reinstate the draft.
6) The wealth gap in the US continues to grow dramatically with median family income dropping and the super-wealthy enjoying unprecedented income and net-worth gains.

Maybe we should re-elect Bush. Those of us who manage to survive four more years of his stupidity can rest comfortably in the assurance that the UPSIDE for Republicans and conservatives would be a crushing defeat in 2008, loss of the Congress, and the kind of national contempt that would indeed take generations to recover from. The downside, of course, might be armed revolution and purges. Something to think about, eh?

More Breathtaking Bush Admin Incompetence

"BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 24 - The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives - used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons - are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year...

The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured, European diplomats said in interviews last week. Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded, beyond the fact that the occupation force was overwhelmed by the amount of munitions they found throughout the country."

Why is it that so many people confuse TALKING tough about terrorism and actually DOING something? Perhaps an entire administration whose ideology holds that government itself is the problem and never the solution is incapable of competent work. Certainly those of you who think that terrorism is the most important issue of our times should demand, DEMAND that your federal government function efficiently and effectively--if no other time then at least when dealing with terrorism. It's clear that what we are getting from Washington these days is Karl Rove pumping meaningless blather through his Bush puppet and pathetic incompetence in nearly every area of responsibility. Yes--we are far, far LESS SAFE under these bumblers than we would be under any president with a brain.


Coming Home: By Patrick J. Buchanan

William's Note: The American Conservative has the article in this month's issue and I recommend reading it all. It will not be fun reading for most Bush republicans--he is saying things here that many thinking republicans are saying behind closed doors--that most administration positions (except for Iraq that many of us happen to agree with Pat about) are nothing more than vote-whoring strategies designed by campaign strategists to milk out every vote after the Iraq debacle--but Pat is right about John Kerry and the left-wing, jack-booted thugs that will march into power bringing with them a further erosion of personal rights, political liberties with their insistence on giving courts dangerous powers to circumvent the voters

Everything we predicted has come to pass. Iraq is the worst strategic blunder in our lifetime. And for it, George W. Bush, his War Cabinet, and the neoconservatives who plotted and planned this war for a decade bear full responsibility. Should Bush lose on Nov. 2, it will be because he heeded their siren song—that the world was pining for American Empire; that “Big Government Conservatism” is a political philosophy, not an opportunistic sellout of principle; that free-trade globalism is the path to prosperity, not the serial killer of U.S. manufacturing; that amnesty for illegal aliens is compassionate conservatism, not an abdication of constitutional duty.

By Patrick J. Buchanan

In the fall of 2002, the editors of this magazine moved up its launch date to make the conservative case against invading Iraq. Such a war, we warned, on a country that did not attack us, did not threaten us, did not want war with us, and had no role in 9/11, would be “a tragedy and a disaster.” Invade and we inherit our own West Bank of 23 million Iraqis, unite Islam against us, and incite imams from Morocco to Malaysia to preach jihad against America. So we wrote, again and again.

In a 6,000-word article entitled “Whose War?” we warned President Bush that he was “being lured into a trap baited for him by neocons that could cost him his office and cause America to forfeit years of peace won for us by the sacrifices of two generations...”

Everything we predicted has come to pass. Iraq is the worst strategic blunder in our lifetime. And for it, George W. Bush, his War Cabinet, and the neoconservatives who plotted and planned this war for a decade bear full responsibility. Should Bush lose on Nov. 2, it will be because he heeded their siren song—that the world was pining for American Empire; that “Big Government Conservatism” is a political philosophy, not an opportunistic sellout of principle; that free-trade globalism is the path to prosperity, not the serial killer of U.S. manufacturing; that amnesty for illegal aliens is compassionate conservatism, not an abdication of constitutional duty.

Mr. Bush was led up the garden path. And the returns from his mid-life conversion to neoconservatism are now in:

• A guerrilla war in Iraq is dividing and bleeding America with no end in sight. It carries the potential for chaos, civil war, and the dissolution of that country.

• Balkanization of America and the looming bankruptcy of California as poverty and crime rates soar from an annual invasion of indigent illegals is forcing native-born Californians to flee the state for the first time since gold was found at Sutter’s Mill.

• A fiscal deficit of 4 percent of GDP and merchandise trade deficit of 6 percent of GDP have produced a falling dollar, the highest level of foreign indebtedness in U.S. history, and the loss of one of every six manufacturing jobs since Bush took office.

If Bush loses, his conversion to neoconservatism, the Arian heresy of the American Right, will have killed his presidency. Yet, in the contest between Bush and Kerry, I am compelled to endorse the president of the United States. Why? Because, while Bush and Kerry are both wrong on Iraq, Sharon, NAFTA, the WTO, open borders, affirmative action, amnesty, free trade, foreign aid, and Big Government, Bush is right on taxes, judges, sovereignty, and values. Kerry is right on nothing.

The only compelling argument for endorsing Kerry is to punish Bush for Iraq. But why should Kerry be rewarded? He voted to hand Bush a blank check for war. Though he calls Iraq a “colossal” error, “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time,” he has said he would—even had he known Saddam had no role in 9/11 and no WMD—vote the same way today. This is the Richard Perle position.

Assuredly, a president who plunged us into an unnecessary and ruinous war must be held accountable. And if Bush loses, Iraq will have been his undoing. But a vote for Kerry is more than just a vote to punish Bush. It is a vote to punish America.

For Kerry is a man who came home from Vietnam to slime the soldiers, sailors, Marines, and POWs he left behind as war criminals who engaged in serial atrocities with the full knowledge of their superior officers. His conduct was as treasonous as that of Jane Fonda and disqualifies him from ever being commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.

As senator, he voted to undermine the policy of Ronald Reagan that brought us victory in the Cold War. He has voted against almost every weapon in the U.S. arsenal. Though a Catholic who professes to believe life begins at conception, he backs abortion on demand. He has opposed the conservative judges Bush has named to the U.S. appellate courts. His plans for national health insurance and new spending would bankrupt America. He would raise taxes. He is a globalist and a multilateralist who would sign us on to the Kyoto Protocol and International Criminal Court. His stands on Iraq are about as coherent as a self-portrait by Jackson Pollock.

With Kerry as president, William Rehnquist could be succeeded as chief justice by Hillary Clinton. Every associate justice Kerry named would be cut from the same bolt of cloth as Warren, Brennan, Douglas, Blackmun, and Ginsburg. Should Kerry win, the courts will remain a battering ram of social revolution and the conservative drive in Congress to restrict the jurisdiction of all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, will die an early death.

I cannot endorse the candidate of Michael Moore, George Soros, and Barbra Streisand, nor endorse a course of action that would put this political windsurfer into the presidency, no matter how deep our disagreement with the fiscal, foreign, immigration, and trade policies of George W. Bush.

As Barry Goldwater said in 1960, in urging conservatives to set aside their grievances and unite behind the establishment party of Eisenhower, Rockefeller, and Lodge, the Republican Party is our home. It is our only hope. If an authentic conservatism rooted in the values of faith, family, community, and country is ever again to become the guiding light of national policy, it will have to come through a Republican administration.

The Democratic Party of Kerry, Edwards, Clinton & Clinton is a lost cause: secularist, socialist, and statist to the core. What of the third-party candidates? While Ralph Nader is a man of principle and political courage, he is of the populist Left. We are of the Right.

The Constitution Party is the party closest to this magazine in philosophy and policy prescriptions, and while one must respect votes for Michael Peroutka by those who live in Red or Blue states, we cannot counsel such votes in battleground states.

For this election has come down to Bush or Kerry, and on life, guns, judges, taxes, sovereignty, and defense, Bush is far better. Moreover, inside the Republican Party, a rebellion is stirring. Tom Tancredo is leading the battle for defense of our borders. While only a handful of Republicans stood with us against the war in Iraq, many now concede that we were right. As Franklin Foer writes in the New York Times, our America First foreign policy is now being given a second look by a conservative movement disillusioned with neoconservative warmongering and Wilsonian interventionism.

There is a rumbling of dissent inside the GOP to the free-trade fanaticism of the Wall Street Journal that is denuding the nation of manufacturing and alienating Reagan Democrats. The celebrants of outsourcing in the White House have gone into cloister. The Bush amnesty for illegal aliens has been rejected. Prodigal Republicans now understand that their cohabitation with Big Government has brought their country to the brink of ruin and bought them nothing. But if we wish to be involved in the struggle for the soul of the GOP—and we intend to be there—we cannot be AWOL from the battle where the fate of that party is decided.

There is another reason Bush must win. The liberal establishment that marched us into Vietnam evaded punishment for its loss of nerve and failure of will to win—by dumping LBJ, defecting to the children’s crusade to “give peace a chance,” then sabotaging Nixon every step of the way out of Vietnam until they broke his presidency in Watergate. Ensuring America’s defeat, they covered their tracks by denouncing their own war as “Nixon’s War.”

If Kerry wins, leading a party that detests this war, he will be forced to execute an early withdrawal. Should that bring about a debacle, neocons will indict Democrats for losing Iraq. The cakewalk crowd cannot be permitted to get out from under this disaster that easily. They steered Bush into this war and should be made to see it through to the end and to preside over the withdrawal or retreat. Only thus can they be held accountable. Only thus can this neo-Jacobin ideology be discredited in America’s eyes. It is essential for the country and our cause that it be repudiated by the Republican Party formally and finally. The neocons must clean up the mess they have made, themselves, in full public view.

There is a final reason I support George W. Bush. A presidential election is a Hatfield-McCoy thing, a tribal affair. No matter the quarrels inside the family, when the shooting starts, you come home to your own. When the Redcoats approached New Orleans to sunder the Union and Jackson was stacking cotton bales and calling for help from any quarter, the pirate Lafitte wrote to the governor of Louisiana to ask permission to fight alongside his old countrymen. “The Black Sheep wants to come home,” Lafitte pleaded.

It’s time to come home.


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