While Kerry gave his acceptance speech on Thursday evening, my wife watched and I was in the other room listening and blogging. My wife swore that she heard Kerry say this line:

What does it mean when 25% of our children in Harlem have asthma because of [url=http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/archives/hairpollution.mp3]hair pollution[/url]… [Soundbyte posted on [url=http://www.beggingtodiffer.com/archives/2004_07.html#001536]Begging to Differ[/url]]

I thought she was mistaken,but, as it turns out, my wife was right and I was wrong. So what else is new?

Anyway, If anyone ought to know about “hair pollution,” I guess it would be $1000 per haircut Kerry. Or should we just call him Hairy Kerry for short?

Sorry, I just couldn’t let that one go.

Hat tip to [url=http://www.evilwhiteguy.com/blog/]EvilWhiteGuy[/url]

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

An excellent message of support:

Why Women Support President George W. Bush
Written by guest blogger Patti Dahlstrom of [url=http://www.babesforbush.com/index.htm]Babes for Bush[/url].
________________________

If you ask why women like President Bush, the reasons are probably parallel to why men like him. As one woman, I can tell you the reasons I like him.

George W. Bush loves and respects his mother, Barbara; he loves and respects his wife, Laura. According to Laura, his best friend is Condaleeza Rice, another strong, intelligent woman. He truly enjoys and admires strong women; he “gets” women and appreciates them, knowing their equal importance in the scheme of things. Women like this quality in him. This speaks to the strength of his spirit over ego.

George W. Bush is a man of his word. He has to make the tough decisions; still, he has stood by his principles. Even when it has not been popular, he has walked the road less traveled. When has it ever been popular to walk the higher road? An Atlanta radio host, Martha Zoller, said that he “means what he says and says what he means.” That’s George W. Bush, and that speaks to his courage over fear.

Some of his decisions have called for the ultimate sacrifice from our men and women in the military. This, I am sure, has been the most difficult of all his burdens to bear. When I spoke with President Bush at a fundraiser in March, I gave him a message from my nephew, a Marine Lieutenant. He was extremely concerned, sending a message in return expressing gratitude for my nephew’s service. President Bush feels deeply about each and every one who is serving, those we’ve lost and those still in peril. He is profoundly conscious of the Americans in uniform. This speaks to the weight his heart carries for the sake of all Americans and freedom in the world.

When you meet him, he understands that you might be nervous because he is the president, and he puts you at ease with his kindness. He knows it is not about him, the man, but the office of the presidency, which is overwhelming. This speaks to his understanding.

Lastly, though certainly foremost in this woman’s mind, is the honor with which President Bush claims his relationship with God. The founding fathers of this country not only spoke of their belief in God with pride, but also based the foundation of the United States on their spiritual principles. George W. Bush approaches that office, the most powerful position in this world, every morning with that same sense of responsibility to a higher power. He never stands so tall as when he kneels in prayer. He knows that to have any hope of handling the power entrusted to him, he must entrust himself to God. This speaks to his humility.

Bob Woodward was on Larry King one night saying that he had interviewed many presidents, and that George W. Bush was the only one who was telling the American people the truth about what he knew. This speaks to his sincerity.

President Bush is easy to trust because he is telling the truth. His love of America, its people, and its principle of freedom inspire confidence in his leadership. The thoughtfulness with which he carries the burdens of this country, while not allowing the attitudes of others to deter him from that true and difficult course, helps us all do the hard things more gracefully.

Women trust him because he trusts women (and he looks good in that flight suit).

Women like and will vote for President Bush to continue running this country because he is a good and courageous man, and, history will prove, a great president.

God bless America; God bless President George W. Bush.

Amen

David Flanagan
[url=http://www.viewpointjournal.com]Viewpointjournal.com[/url]

The whole theme of the Democratic National Convention was to show the party’s “moderate” side in order to convince swing voters of Kerry’s readiness for the office of the Presidency. But the overall theme of the convention, culminating in an insult-riddled acceptance speech from Kerry, was again the common Bush-bashing message that conservatives have grown so used to these past few years.

Lets catalogue the veiled and not-so-veiled slaps at President Bush and his administration:

“I will be a commander in chief who will never mislead us into war. I will have a Vice President who will not conduct secret meetings with polluters to rewrite our environmental laws. I will have a Secretary of Defense who will listen to the best advice of our military leaders. And I will appoint an Attorney General who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States.” [Slap, slap, slap… Very positive message already, don’t you think?]

“Remember the hours after September 11th, when we came together as one to answer the attack against our homeland. We drew strength when our firefighters ran up the stairs and risked their lives, so that others might live. When rescuers rushed into smoke and fire at the Pentagon. When the men and women of Flight 93 sacrificed themselves to save our nation’s Capitol. When flags were hanging from front porches all across America, and strangers became friends. It was the worst day we have ever seen, but it brought out the best in all of us. ” [How shameful for Kerry to exploit 9/11 for political purposes!]

“Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn’t make it so. Saying we can fight a war on the cheap doesn’t make it so. And proclaiming mission accomplished certainly doesn’t make it so.” [Never mind the fact that Kerry was saying the same thing about Iraq at least three years before President Bush took office.]

“As President, I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence. I will immediately reform the intelligence system - so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics. And as President, I will bring back this nation’s time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.” [After being one of those principally responsible for tearing the intelligence system down in the first place, I wonder how well he’ll do at rebuilding it. As for the time-honored tradition of going to war “because we have to” as opposed to going to war “because we want to,” perhaps he should have a chat with Bill Clinton.]

“As President, I will wage this war with the lessons I learned in war. Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent in the eye and truthfully say: ‘I tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm’s way. But we had no choice. We had to protect the American people, fundamental American values from a threat that was real and imminent.’ So lesson one, this is the only justification for going to war.” [Which is, for the most part, what he said when he voted to authorize military action against Saddam, but lets not dwell on that too much, right?]

“I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a President who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That’s the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

Here is the reality: that won’t happen until we have a president who restores America’s respect and leadership — so we don’t have to go it alone in the world.

And we need to rebuild our alliances, so we can get the terrorists before they get us.” [First of all, please note that there have been no additional terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11. Such a dramatic turnaround that Kerry has even implied in some of his campaign speeches that Bush is over-emphasizing the threat from terrorists. Democrats have continuously implied that we went to war without a coalition. While the coalition was somewhat different from the original Gulf War, there are many countries with troops now serving in Iraq, so why does Kerry insist that France must be a part of the coalition for it to be legitimate? As for restoring respect for for America’s leadership, Kerry could have helped with that all along but chose instead to tear down President Bush and foster a lack of respect. If people in other nations see partisan politics in our own country on these kinds of issues, it will of course cast doubt on what we are doing. The laugh-riot of this quote, of course, is the fact that what Kerry will do if he becomes President is no different from what we are already doing. But it sure does sound good on paper, doesn’t it?]

“I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military.” [So, in other words, you will do exactly what President Bush has already done.]

“As President, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. We will deploy every tool in our arsenal: our economic as well as our military might; our principles as well as our firepower.” [And this is different from what the President has already done in what way?]

“In these dangerous days there is a right way and a wrong way to be strong. Strength is more than tough words. After decades of experience in national security, I know the reach of our power and I know the power of our ideals.” [First of all, the quote “Strength is more than tough words,” applies directly to Kerry since all he has given us are “tough words” with no strength behind them. Secondly, please give us one law or policy which you have written that shows the depth of your foreign policy/national security experience.]

“We need to make America once again a beacon in the world. We need to be looked up to and not just feared.” [I think fear is a good start. If bin Laden had been more afraid of us, as opposed to contemptuous, 9/11 would never have happened.]

“We need to lead a global effort against nuclear proliferation - to keep the most dangerous weapons in the world out of the most dangerous hands in the world.” [Well, you and Bill Clinton had your chance with North Korea and blew that. In the 90’s, while Pakistani scientists were conferring with nations like Iran, North Korea, and others and spreading knowledge on the production of nuclear weapons, where were you and Bill Clinton? Bush has done more to deter nuclear proliferation in three years than you have in 19.]

“We need a strong military and we need to lead strong alliances. And then, with confidence and determination, we will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose and we will win. The future doesn’t belong to fear; it belongs to freedom.” [Who is “we” Kimosabe? President Bush has been there, done that already.]

“And the front lines of this battle are not just far away - they’re right here on our shores, at our airports, and potentially in any town or city. Today, our national security begins with homeland security.” [Then you support the Patriot Act, correct?]

“The 9-11 Commission has given us a path to follow, endorsed by Democrats, Republicans, and the 9-11 families.” [Also endorsed by President Bush, who has urged swift implementation of their resolutions.]

“As President, I will not evade or equivocate…” [As opposed to the way you evaded and equivocated on Iraq, and Afghanistan, and the Soviet Union, and North Korea?]

“I will immediately implement the recommendations of that commission. [You mean, all by yourself, without congress? Sounds very “unilateral” to me. Even President Bush knows that this is up to congress.” Are you going to ban congress first then implement the resolutions as you see fit?]

“We shouldn’t be letting ninety-five percent of container ships come into our ports without ever being physically inspected. [Agreed, why haven’t you and the other in congress taken care of this already?” Perhaps it would have been easier to do if you hadn’t missed almost 70% of Senate votes this year. You pass the law, the President will sign it.]

“We shouldn’t be leaving our nuclear and chemical plants without enough protection. And we shouldn’t be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them down in the United States of America.” [Interesting shift here. Before, you were saying “schools” not “firehouses.” Why the shift? Perhaps because you realize that we don’t close public schools here in the US, even the ones that should have been closed long ago. As for protecting chemical plants, et. al, you pass the law, the President will sign it, or have you been away from congress so long that you’ve forgotten the process?]

“And tonight, we have an important message for those who question the patriotism of Americans who offer a better direction for our country. Before wrapping themselves in the flag and shutting their eyes and ears to the truth, they should remember what America is really all about. They should remember the great idea of freedom for which so many have given their lives. Our purpose now is to reclaim democracy itself. We are here to affirm that when Americans stand up and speak their minds and say America can do better, that is not a challenge to patriotism; it is the heart and soul of patriotism.” [Name one instance where this has happened. If you call Americans “stupid” as the liberal hero Michael Moore has done, or you call Americans “murderers,” “rapists,” and “criminals,” as you did year ago before congress, then, yes, we’ll question your patriotism. And our right to question your patriotism for such accusation is also “the heart and soul of patriotism.”]

“My fellow citizens, elections are about choices. And choices are about values. In the end, it’s not just policies and programs that matter; the president who sits at that desk must be guided by principle.” [It’s good that you believe this since, after 19 years in congress, you have no policies or programs to your name. As for your principles, I would love to know what they are. But then again, perhaps they are too “nuanced” for us average people.]

“You don’t value families by kicking kids out of after school programs and taking cops off our streets, so that Enron can get another tax break.” [It was the Clinton Adminstration that gave Enron the tax break. Bush, on the other hand, had the Enron criminals handcuffed and put in jail. Just thought you should know.]

“You don’t value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service…” [What despicable person would do such a thing? Oh, thats right, you did that when you voted against the 87 billion for the funding of our troops in Iraq!]

“I want an America that relies on its own ingenuity and innovation - not the Saudi royal family.” [Well, I’m sure the Saudi royal family will appreciate that sentiment. One concrete step you could take, perhaps, is to stop voting against attempts to use our own natural resources. Just a suggestion.]

“I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush: In the weeks ahead, let’s be optimists, not just opponents. Let’s build unity in the American family, not angry division. Let’s honor this nation’s diversity; let’s respect one another…[Here’s the real message behind this message: “Mr. President, I’ve just pummelled you mercilessly on everything from the economy to the war on terror, calling you and your administration, in effect, cowards, warmongers, arrogant, and a host of other names, but please don’t treat me as I’ve just treated you.”]

“And let me say it plainly: in that cause, and in this campaign, we welcome people of faith. America is not us and them…” [As opposed to what Kerry, Senator Edwards, and every speaker at this convention has been telling you now for the past three decades.]

“That is the kind of America I will lead as President - an America where we are all in the same boat.” [As Commander-in-Chief will you also do what you claim was done by yourself and all your fellow servicemen and women in Viet Nam? Burn villages, rape women, cut off limbs, and commit all manner of other atrocities that you STILL claim today happened then? I think the American people should know the answer to that question before it comes time to vote.]

I’ve gone on at length, but the message here is very simple, Kerry claims that strength is more than “tough words.” Guess what, so is leadership! As a leader, all I’ve seen from Kerry is tough words, and even then, he’ll abandon those tough words as soon as it’s politically expedient.

Kerry issued very tough words on Iraq for years, but then retracted them when it came time to fund the troops who were tasked with bringing peace to Iraq. He did that, not because of any objections he had over the funding, but because, at the time Howard Dean was killing him in the polls and so Kerry desperately moved to the left to try and win back his failing support.

This is why Americans typically distrust Washington politicians who run for President, they are just too damned political in everything they say and do. Kerry is the epitome of a Washington politician, a man who has flipped and flopped his way through 19 years of congressional service, yet who has so little to show for that service that he spends 50% or more of his time talking about his Viet Nam service from 30 years ago.

How sad.

The loony left seems to be in full control of the Democratic Party at this point. What will happen when they lose in November? I shudder to think.

David Flanagan
[url=http://www.viewpointjournal.com]Viewpointjournal.com[/url]

Okay, they’ve done it again. The very fact that Democrats haven’t learned from recent history but, instead, continue to play with fire tells me more than anything how broken this party really is.

Monday night, Democrats invited former VP Al Gore, AKA, “The Grim Reaper,” [url=http://www.king5.com/sharedcontent/washington/convention/speeches/072604cckkDNCalgore.1754ba3b.html]to speak at the Democratic National Convention on behalf of their new candidate, John F Kerry[/url]. Which means, of course, that poor Kerry is doomed!

Almost as an arbinger of that coming doom, Kerry’s campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, yesterday went on the air with Fox News to accuse NASA of leaking photos from Kerry’s visit to the Kennedy Center showing him in what some are calling a “bunny suit,” but which is actually a suit used by workers in space. John Glenn is with Kerry and in several photos, Kerry, Glenn, and a third person (whoever that might be) are obviously posing for picture, yet Ms. Cahill insisted that “no photos were supposed to have been taken,” and that the photos came as a complete surprise. I have heard a rumor, unverified at present, that a NASA official claims to have submitted the photos taken during the Kerry visit to his campaign for their review, but a few of the photos taken during the visit were also posted to the NASA website. Really, this is silly because, while Kerry does not really look all that great in the suit, he doesn’t look bad either.

The fact is, space suits rarely make you look good. They are built to protect human life, not human dignity.

The mistake here is that Ms. Cahill has turned a bad photo op into Grade-A fodder for Kerry critics by overreacting to a few not-so-dignified photos. Ms. Cahill should have gone on Fox News and LAUGHED at the photos and told Brit Hume and the Fox News audience how much fun Kerry had putting on the suit, crawling into a real rocket, visiting with John Glenn and NASA officials, etc. The mainstream public would have smiled and moved on. Really, thats all there is to the story and most everyone knows it.

Unfortunately, Ms. Cahill has turned something innocent into a conspiracy. When Hume asked Ms. Cahill if she thought this might be a “dirty trick” on the part of some officials at NASA, Ms. Hume responded, “What do you think?” BIG MISTAKE! Laugh and move on and the American people suddenly can appreciate Kerry for his ability to laugh at himself and show enthusiasm for something cool like putting on a real spacesuit and crawling into a rocket.

That and a new poll by ABC News and The Washington Post showing that Kerry’s momentum might be slipping have to be of great concern to Kerry supporters. All that, ironically happening the very day after Bill Clinton vowed to get Kerry elected as the next President and the day of Gore’s speech on behalf of Kerry.

Bill Clinton’s speech, was brilliantly delivered. [url=http://www.king5.com/sharedcontent/washington/convention/speeches/072604ccjpConvBillClintontext.184541d5.html]NO ONE can speechify like our former President[/url], except perhaps the British PM, Tony Blair. The difference, of course, is that I trust what comes out of Blair’s mouth.

Case in point; about midway into his speech, Clinton spent a couple of minutes dividing the nation between rich and poor, the powerless and powerful, the caring and the cold-hearted, the victim and the victimizers. Then he goes on to conclude that “they [Republicans] have to portray us Democrats as unacceptable, lacking in strength and values. In other words, they need a divided America.” [emphasis mine] “Wow,” I said to myself, “Clinton pulls out the old ‘weak vs the powerful’line, akin to Edward’s ‘The Two Americas’spiel, and then claims that Republicans need a divided America? A bunch of malarky, but MAN did he make it sound good!”

But I digress.

The fact is, former VP Albert Gore has been the kiss of death to too many politicians for me to count. One of his latest casualties was Howard Dean. Gore showed up to give Dean an unexpected and ringing endorsement near the height of Dean’s campaign… And soon after Dean’s poll numbers began to collapse and Dean was routed in nearly every Democratic primary in America. Dean was called “unelectable” by voters, but I know better. What really happened was that Dean got Gore-d! As did Grey Davis in California, and numerous other Democratic candidates and incumbents.

In February, [url=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/8/133008.shtml]Newsmax highlighted how damaging Gore’s endorsements can be[/url]:

He is also becoming the butt of jokes. Bob Dole said he has advised the Kerry and Edwards campaigns that if Gore calls them, they should not return the phone call.

“I suppose people are going to be running away from Al Gore the way the devil runs away from holy water,” Paul Begala, a former Clinton aide, told the New York Times.

Please, you Democrats out there, listen to me… Al Gore is bad mojo. Be afraid, be VERY afraid!

David Flanagan
[url=http://www.viewpointjournal.com]Viewpointjournal.com[/url]

As freedom takes hold in Iraq, Iraqi citizens are now beginning to join the Blogosphere. One blog in particular that I’ve really enjoyed reading is [url=http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/]IRAQ THE MODEL[/url], published and maintained by three brothers, Mohammed, Ali, and Omar. Real names? Who knows, but I love to read their posts. Today’s post is especially good, one which I think everyone should read. Here is a portion with a link to the rest:

A LESSON IN ENGLISH

One of the readers sent me [url=http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0614-02.htm#statement]this document [/url]that was published about 2 years ago in the Guardian of London newspaper in which anti-war American artists declare their rejection for the American government international policy and war on terror and ask for support. Since such protests have never stopped, I decided to take a look and see what can I make out of it.
 
I was surprised by the numerous grammar and spelling mistakes in that document. Maybe the guy who wrote it was not really American? Or probably not very educated? Anyhow and as a member of the human race who wants to help whenever possible, I decided to offer my help to the peace movement in the world and do some editing to some paragraphs, as it may harm their reputation to leave those mistakes there.

Yes I know it seems funny that an Iraqi help some Americans in writing in English but I thought I have attained some modest experience in writing in English throughout these months that probably made me more American than they (linguistically, I mean). Here are the edited paragraphs with the corrections in bold letters:

We believe that peoples and nations have the right to determine their own destiny -and when they’re ruled by dictators the right will be legally transferred to their rulers -free from military coercion by great powers. We believe that all persons detained or prosecuted by the United States government should have the same rights of due process. We believe that questioning, criticism, and dissent must be valued and protected. We understand that such rights and values are always contested and must be fought for, and that these rights are only ours and not for people who live in totalitarian regimes and thus don’t know or appreciate the meaning of democracy and freedom.

We believe that people of conscience must take responsibility for what their own governments do — we must first of all oppose the injustice, as we see it so even if it brings tyrants like Saddam to trial and save their people, that is done in our own name. Thus we call on all Americans to RESIST the war- any war even if it freed millions of people- and repression that has been loosed on the peaceful Arab and Muslim dictators and the terrorists by the Bush administration. It is unjust, immoral, and illegitimate and will cost *us* more taxes. We choose to oppose this war even if it lead to make common cause with those who oppress the people of the world.
 
We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11, 2001. We too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage — even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and, a generation ago, Vietnam. We too joined the anguished questioning of millions of Americans who asked why such a thing could happen but that’s all what we can and want to do.

But the mourning had barely begun, when the highest leaders of the land unleashed a spirit of revenge. They put out a simplistic script of “good vs. evil” that was taken up by a pliant and intimidated media. They told us that asking why these terrible events had happened verged on treason. There was to be no debate. There were by definition no valid political or moral questions. The only possible answer was to be war abroad and repression at home. So you must realize that we are risking our lives by signing this document. It’s not like saying “no” to a guy like Saddam or Ghadafi; This is GWB!

In our name, the Bush administration, with near unanimity from Congress, not only attacked Afghanistan but arrogated to itself and its allies the right to rain down military force anywhere and anytime. The brutal repercussions have been felt from the Philippines to Palestine, where Israeli tanks and bulldozers have left a terrible trail of death and destruction just for their own amusement. The government now openly prepares to wage all-out war on Iraq — a country which has no connection to the horror of September 11. What kind of world will this become if the U.S. government has a blank check from the congress that represents the American people to drop commandos, assassins, and bombs wherever it wants? Possibly a free world but that’s not the point.

In our name, the government has brought down a pall of repression over society. The Presidents spokesperson warns people to “watch what they say.” Dissident artists, intellectuals, and professors find their views distorted, attacked, and suppressed. The so-called Patriot Act — along with a host of similar measures on the state level — gives police sweeping new powers of search and seizure, supervised if at all by secret proceedings before secret courts. We are afraid that we may be going to live in a place that looks more like Iraq or Afghanistan!
 
President Bush has declared: “you’re either with us or you’re against us.” (We hate him so much by the way but this is not personal!) Here is our answer: We are against you even if it means we’re with the terrorists because we don’t mean to be with them! We refuse to allow you to speak for all the American people. We will not give up our right to question. We will not hand over our consciences in return for a hollow promise of safety. We say Don’t free them, NOT IN OUR NAME. We refuse to be party to these wars and we repudiate any inference that they are being waged in our name or for our welfare. We extend a hand to those around the world suffering from these policies; we will show our solidarity in word and deed, but excuse us if we can’t come closer to you because frankly, WE DON’T GIVE A SHIT.

[url=http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/]MORE…[/url]

Well said!

David Flanagan
[url=http://www.viewpointjournal.com]Viewpointjournal.com[/url]

Very curious development on the homefront…

The [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/19/national/main630625.shtml]AP reports [/url]that former Clinton Advisor, Sandy Berger, is the target of a criminal investigation by the FBI. Berger has admitted to removing highly classified documents from a secure reading room prior to his appearance before the 9/11 Commission.

Berger’s home and office were searched earlier this year by FBI agents armed with warrants after he voluntarily returned documents to the National Archives. However, some drafts of a sensitive after-action report on the Clinton administration’s handling of al Qaeda terror threats during the December 1999 millennium celebration are still missing.

Berger and his lawyer said Monday night he knowingly removed handwritten notes he had made while reading classified anti-terror documents he reviewed at the archives by sticking them in his jacket and pants. He also inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio, they said.

“Inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio?” I find it hard to believe that putting documents in your leather portfolio would be an inadvertant act. In fact, as the article goes on to say, some of these “copies,” which may actually have been originals, are now missing.

The FBI searches of Berger’s home and office occurred after National Archives employees told agents they believed they witnessed Berger place documents in his clothing while reviewing sensitive Clinton administration papers, officials said.

When asked, Berger said he returned some classified documents that he found in his office and all of the handwritten notes he had taken from the secure room, but said he could not locate two or three copies of the highly classified millennium terror report. [emphasis mine]

I would call all of this highly suspicious. Even more damaging is the fact that Sandy Berger is currently one of John F Kerry’s campaign advisors. So, not only does Senator Kerry have the whole [url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/337paflu.asp]Joe Wilson debacle[/url] clouding his candidacy (Senator Kerry is also advised by Joe Wilson and has underwritten Mr. Wilson’s website), he has another of his advisors, Sandy Berger, actively being investigated by the FBI for what may amount to a federal crime, theft of classified documents.

Could this have anything to do with [url=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/16/20657.shtml]Clinton’s admitted failure [/url]to take advantage of the Sudanese offer in 1996 to turn Osama bin Laden over to the United States? Perhaps it’s as innocent as former President Clinton seeking copies in order to prepare for his testimony before the Commission. Whatever the case, Mr. Berger has admitted to the commission of what seems to me to be a federal crime.

Lets call this one a developing story.

David Flanagan
[url=http://www.viewpointjournal.com]Viewpointjournal.com[/url]

First, before I list out all the telling quotes that make John Edwards a better advocate for President Bush and the war in Iraq than most any person in congress, I need to give credit to the source.

The quotes listed below were assembled by Stephen F Hayes of [url=http://www.theweeklystandard.com]The Weekly Standard.[/url] Because I feel strongly about NOT just cutting and pasting entire articles to Blogcritics or to my personal blog, [url=http://www.viewpointjournal.com]Viewpointjournal.com[/url], I decided to select just a few very telling quotes to whet your appetite and then [url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/303fqrnk.asp]link back to the Hayes article for you[/url].

[url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/303fqrnk.asp]Lets take a look at what Mr. Hayes assembled for our home audience[/url]:

Edwards vs. Kerry
From the July 19, 2004 issue: Look who doesn’t buy the presidential candidate’s critique of the Iraq war.
by Stephen F. Hayes
07/19/2004, Volume 009, Issue 42

“THE UNITED STATES of America should never go to war because it wants to,” said John Kerry last weekend in a speech in Cloquet, Minn., accusing the Bush administration of bellicosity. “We should only go to war because we have to.”

Did we go to war in Iraq just because we wanted to, or because Iraq posed a threat? Kerry’s new running mate John Edwards addressed that question from the Senate floor on October 10, 2002, explaining his decision to vote to authorize war in Iraq.

“I’m here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored. I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action.”

The Bush administration “misled America.” Kerry is fond these days of claiming that the Bush administration “misled” the country to go to war in Iraq. Here he is during a June 25 appearance on Nightline with Ted Koppel. The administration “deeply misled the American people. I think the evidence is quite clear.”

For Edwards,
however, the evidence wasn’t quite so clear. “So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled,” he said on Hardball with Chris Matthews on October 13, 2003, almost a year to the day after he voted to authorize the Iraq war and some six months after major combat ended. When Matthews followed up, asking Edwards if he got an “honest reading on the intelligence,” the junior senator from North Carolina seemed to place much of the blame on the intelligence community.

EDWARDS: “And as you know, I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee. So it wasn’t just the Bush administration. I sat in meeting after meeting after meeting where we were told about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. There is clearly a disconnect between what we were told and what, in fact, we found there.”

What’s more, on February 24, 2002, Edwards was asked by CNN’s John King about President Bush’s labeling of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an “axis of evil.” His response: “You know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. . . . And they do, in my judgment, present different threats. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.”

[url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/303fqrnk.asp]MORE…[/url]

C’mon John, tell us what you REALLY think!

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Did Bush lie to send this country to war? Many of our far-left friends think so, including one man, Joe Wilson, who first claimed in a July, 2003, New York Times column that the President’s [url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html]2003 State of The Union speech[/url] contained [url=http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?pid=823]one lie in particular[/url] (Saddam’s attempt to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger) that he could personally refute.

The controversy ballooned when Robert Novak wrote a column entitled [url=http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml]Mission to Niger[/url], in which he claimed that two “senior administration officials” had informed him of the fact that Mr. Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, an operative in the CIA’s WMD section, had recommended him for the assignment. Mr. Wilson claimed outrage that his wife had been “outed” by the Bush Administration, an act of revenge, he claimed, for embarrasing the President by refuting the President’s use of the intelligence in his speech.

Mr. Wilson repeatedly denied that his wife had recommended him for the assignment, claiming rather, that he had been contacted by CIA officials seperately. An [url=http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/wilson.interview.pdf]interview with Josh Marshall[/url] of Talking Points Memo has Wilson asserting that his wife, pregnant with twins at the time, would not have wanted him to go.

Now, fast-forward to April of 2004. This is month in which Mr. Wilson published his book, [url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/078671378X/qid=1089775409/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-1783716-0619958?v=glance&s=books&n=507846]The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife’s CIA Identity: A Diplomat’s Memoir[/url], which claimed, amazingly that the President had not lied about the Niger incident. Indeed, Saddam had attempted to buy yellow cake uranium in Niger, just as UK intelligence sources had claimed and just as the President had reiterated in his speech.

This startling revelation, of course, was left virtually untouched by the liberal media. Apparently, it wasn’t quite as newsworthy as a potential Bush intelligence scandal… Go figure!

But Mr. Wilson went on to insist again that he had not been recommended by his wife for the Niger assignment and that the administration officials had outed Ms. Plame as revenge, not simply to question Mr. Wilson’s claims.

Fast-forward again to the recent release of the [url=http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf]Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s report[/url], which asserts that Mr. Wilson was indeed recommended for the Niger assignment by his wife, just as the administration officials claimed. The significance of this finding cannot be underestimated because, not only does it show conclusively who the real liar is, it literally [url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005342]ends any claims that Mr. Wilson[/url] ever made that the Bush Administration broke any laws.

Ultimately, this finding is incredibly embarrasing to any who supported Mr. Wilson in his claim that “Bush lied” regarding the yellow cake story. But even more important in my mind is the fact that this incident shows in the clearest manner possible how reckless the left has become in it’s attempts to hurt the President. Mr. Wilson’s so-called “proof” that the President had “lied” to the American people was used to lend credence to other supposed “lies” or exaggerations. Lies built upon lies, held together by even more lies. A house of cards blown away by the winds of truth.

Unfortunately, people like Mr. Wilson are so reckless, they are even willing to endanger our national security efforts in their blind attempt to hurt the man they hate. Who cares if these “nuances” hurt the country’s credibility in the international community?

Who cares if this makes us less effective in protecting the homeland, or in removing terrorists and terrorist supporters across the world? As long as it hurts President Bush, its okay with the left!

And both John Kerry and John Edwards have been duplicitous in helping to foster and spread the reckless lies of the left. Both of these men have, in recent years, made the same claims as the President regarding Iraq, only to accuse the President of misleading them in 2003. Was George Bush somehow manipulating the two Johns in 1998 when they were making the same intelligence claims as they made in 2003?

Perhaps a better campaign slogan for the two Johns would be something like, “The Truth is No Obstacle!” It sound a lot more accurate to me!

David Flanagan
[url=http://www.viewpointjournal.com]Viewpointjournal.com[/url]

For some months now, I’ve not emulated my fellow conservatives and Bush supporters in calling for John Kerry to resign. As someone who grew up in the shadow of DC and whose father spent nearly three decades working there, I’ve always understood that campaigning is a real and inescapable part of being an elected official. Campaigning is not just part of their life, it’s their duty. After all, part of the process of campaigning is going before your constituents and defending your record.

But, after hearing of Kerry’s comments to Larry King from yesterday, and reading of Kerry’s attendence record this year, the conclusion is inescapable, he needs to resign. Truly, if Kerry is absolutely committed to running for President, this should be his next step.

Here is an excerpt from the King interview which, to me, is the straw that breaks the camel’s back:

Good evening. Welcome to a special edition of LARRY KING LIVE here in New York with Senator John Kerry, who’s frequently appeared on this show, and Teresa Heinz Kerry, her first appearance on this show. We thank you both very much for coming.

Let’s get to, first thing’s first, news of the day. Tom Ridge warned today about al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States, didn’t increase the — do you see any politics in this? What’s your reaction?

KERRY: Well, I haven’t been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to brief me; I just haven’t had time. But all Americans are united in our efforts to defeat terrorism.

I believe that John Edwards and I can wage a far more effective war on terror than George Bush has. I think we can do a better job of making America safe. But in these days ahead, we all join together no matter what.

Now lets look at a telling quote:

Kerry Considers Voting Small Part of Job

“‘In the age of telecommunications, Sen. Kerry is in daily contact with his chief of staff,’ [Kerry Advisor Michael] Meehan said. ‘Voting is just one small part of being a U.S. senator.’” (Jonathan Wells and Maggie Mulvihill, “Kerry Not On Roll With Voting,” [url=http://www.bostonherald.com]Boston Herald[/url], 3/1/04)

Furthermore, Kerry has [url=http://www.gop.com/RNCResearch/read.aspx?ID=3975]missed 65% (317 votes) of Senate votes[/url] as of March 2004 and he’ll likely miss nearly every vote this year while on the campaign trail. In the real world, Kerry would already have been fired from his job for missing so much work.

Someone please explain to me how it is that Meehan can claim that Kerry is in daily contact with his chief of staff and yet not know about Ridge’s warning? The warning, after all, does pertain directly to the upcoming election.

If he’s too busy for such news, then he should do what Bob Dole did in 1996 when he was the GOP presidential nominee and resign. Has he even followed yet in the footsteps yet of his challengers, Edwards, Gephardt, and Graham in announcing that he won’t seek another term? At least then he could give the appearance of an employee who is just slacking off as he approaches his last days at work rather than someone who is taking salary from one job to pursue an outside interest.

Is Kerry REALLY confident of a victory in November? He doesn’t show that confidence by hedging his bets this way.

Senator Kerry, put your money where your mouth is!

David Flanagan
[url=http://www.viewpointjournal.com]Viewpointjournal.com[/url]

In 1994, when Republicans ousted Democrats from leadership in both the House and the Senate, it was seen as a temporary setback for their party. In 1996, when Republicans kept their majority, the booming economy was blamed. But in 2000, when then-VP Al Gore lost a heart-breakingly close election to President Bush while both the House and the Senate remained in Republican hands, a real anger began to burn in some on the left. Then, in 2002, when, against all historical precedent, Republicans again retained control of the House and Senate, that became positively frothy.

Not that everyone on the left feels this way, or even a majority of Democrats. One thing for sure, though, the mainstream press has shown its willingness to elevate the voice of the froth-faced left to the point where they have drowned out the more moderate members of their party.

To make matters worse, many of those known to conservatives as the “Angry Left” have told themselves a story that has moved many from frothy anger to outright hatred of Republicans in general and the President in particular. Whats the story? In a nutshell, they tell themselves:
-> “We are victims”
-> “Republicans/conservatives are evil”
-> “We are powerless”

The fact is, having said this, many liberals may well comment that my loose quotes above are right on the money. And that, of course, makes the situation all the more pitiful.

Which is why it’s no suprise to me that the campaigning against Bush reflects that “helpless victim” mentality. Bush has been compared to a racist, a murderer, a terrorist, a dictator, a fascist, and a coward (again, I can see some of you liberals reading this and nodding your heads, saying, “he is all those things).

But, as reported by [url=http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/07/06/Features/The-Insiderhillary.Clinton.Promises.Democrats.Will.Raise.Your.Taxes.For.Your.Ow-691277.shtml]Insight Magazine[/url], the Angry Left has hit a new low. How low? How about this, a poster published in various magazines by an organization called Pleasevote.com: President Bush, eater of children:

How low can they go? My gut tells me that we’ve yet to see the worst. Froth anyone?

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Article posted to [url=http://blogcritics.org]Blogcritics.org[/url]

The [url=http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040630/323/ex1bt.html]recently discovered al Qaeda handbook[/url], which is primarily devoted to the organization’s strategy for forcing Spain from Iraq, contains a few telling quotes which shows al Qaeda’s clear understanding related to the importance of President Bush’s efforts in Iraq:

Made-up of 54 pages in Arabic, the document has been authenticated by western experts of the Islamic radical terror network of Saudi-born fugitive Osama bin Laden.

The document, entitled “the Iraq of Jihad (holy war): hopes and dangers,” was prepared by the “information agency for the support of the Iraqi people — office of services for the Mujahedeen (holy warriors).”

It said the US plan was “to build an Iraqi state as conceived by the United States…and enslave Saudi Arabia politically, fight against Islamic proselytism as a salafist and jihadic movement.”

“This would be (for the US) the first step toward the eradication of hardline Islam in the entire world,” it said.

In other words, while Bush critics have relentlessly labelled the removal of Saddam and the establishment of a Democratic government in Iraq a “distraction,” the members of al Qaeda showed with crystal clarity their understanding of the President’s strategy. The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda is doing everything they can to stop this strategy while the President pushes it relentlessly forward, hoping to drive a stake straight into the heart of the Jihadist movement.

Do you see the fascinating irony of the al Qaeda statement? Al Qaeda is in perfect agreement with President Bush regarding the dire impact that a free and democratic Iraq would have on radical Islam. At the same time, al Qaeda’s strategy is exactly that of Michael Moore, Al Gore, and other hard left liberals, get coalition forces out of Iraq at all costs!

Hat tip to James Taranto of [url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005293]Opinionjournal.com[/url].

David Flanagan
[url=http://www.viewpointjournal.com]Viewpointjournal.com[/url]