John Kerry and his campaign have pounded the president for months over his military records. They have accused the President of being AWOL and not completing his service requirements. No matter how much information the President has been able turn up about his service, including signing the SF-180 making his service records public, the press and the Democrats have been merciless.
All during this time John Kerry has campaigned heavily on his war record, sighting his military service repeatedly as an example of his leadership and patriotism. It seems that he proudly references his Vietnam War “Hero” status at every possible turn. The press has been right behind Kerry the whole way, refusing to ask him tough questions and attacking people who have questioned his service. All through this Kerry has refused to release his full military service records by signing the SF-180 form. Why? If the President’s service record is so important why is the service record of a candidate less important? Since he has made his service the center point of the campaign shouldn't the voters be able to see for themselves how well he did his job in the military? Why won’t the media press him on this issue?
I cannot answer these questions with any authority, but the lack of information as led to speculation as to what may be hidden in John Kerry’s service record. There have been some accusations that John Kerry was less than honorably discharged from the military and his status was changed at a later date. There has been speculation that the reason for John Kerry’s request for reinstatement of his service awards in 1985 is evidence of his one-time less than honorable status. There is also speculation that his discharge letter contains evidence that he was not initially a recipient of an honorable discharge from the military. I believe that this is the reason the he has refused to release his military records.
It is time for John Kerry to release his FULL military record. The public has a right to know.
Friday, October 29, 2004
US Failed to Stop the Russians from Removing Iraq’s Banned Weapons
The Washington Time has a very interesting story today that points the finger at the Russians for removing the infamous "missing" explosives from al Qaqaa. It also accuses the Russians of being involved in the removal of the Iraqi WMD. This was clearly a case of CYA on the part of the Russians as they were the largest arms suppliers to the Iraqi military. So much for Russian friendship. With friends like these…
Add to this what we have already learned about the Oil for Food program, and the French abuse of that program, and it seems as if the UN is nothing but an organized crime syndicate. But just remember, everything is OK as long as the US is not doing it, anything we do is a crime against humanity.
UPDATE: Fox News had this information about the Russian connection:
Rumsfeld, in one radio interview, also cast doubt on the suggestion by one of his subordinates that Russian soldiers assisted Iraqis in removing the munitions.
The Washington Times on Thursday quoted John A. Shaw (search), the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, who said he believed Russian special-forces personnel, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material from the Al-Qaqaa facility.
Shaw said he believed the munitions were moved to Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 invasion.
Senior Defense officials urged caution over the Washington Times article because they could not verify its allegations as true.
"I have no information on that at all, and cannot validate that even slightly," Rumsfeld said.
The article prompted an angry denial from Moscow.
This throws a wrinkle in the story. In addition the Fox story covers the ABC News video that allegedly shows the missing explosives in the al Qaqaa dump on April 18, 2003. This seems to support the New York Times story that the explosives were removed after the US first entered the facility. Seems as if we know less about this story today than we did yesterday. Read the entire story and judge for your self.
ANOTHER UPDATE: This is another quote from an Foxs News article about the missing explosives:
A U.S. Army officer came forward Friday and said a team from the 3rd Infantry Division took about 250 tons of munititions and military material from the Al-Qaqaa (search) munitions base soon after Saddam Hussein's regime fell last year.
Explosives were included in the load taken by the team but Major Austin Pearson said he was unable to say what percentage it accounted for. The Pentagon believes the disclosure helps to explain what happened to 377 tons of explosives that the International Atomic Energy Agency (search) said disappeared after Saddam Hussein's regime fell.
A Pentagon spokesman acknowledged they don't have all the answers and can't yet account for all of the missing material but he said it was a signficant development in unraveling the mystery.
"We've described what we know and as we know more we'll decribe that," said spokesman Larry Dirita.
Pearson, accompanied by Dirita, appeared at a Pentagon news conference to say it was his mission to go the facility and clear material from the base but he could not say what percentage of the material were explosives. He said he was not an explosives expert but instead said his main mission is to clear possibly dangerous material from bases to make them safe for U.S. forces.
This is the same story quoted above. The plot thickens...
Add to this what we have already learned about the Oil for Food program, and the French abuse of that program, and it seems as if the UN is nothing but an organized crime syndicate. But just remember, everything is OK as long as the US is not doing it, anything we do is a crime against humanity.
UPDATE: Fox News had this information about the Russian connection:
Rumsfeld, in one radio interview, also cast doubt on the suggestion by one of his subordinates that Russian soldiers assisted Iraqis in removing the munitions.
The Washington Times on Thursday quoted John A. Shaw (search), the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, who said he believed Russian special-forces personnel, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material from the Al-Qaqaa facility.
Shaw said he believed the munitions were moved to Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 invasion.
Senior Defense officials urged caution over the Washington Times article because they could not verify its allegations as true.
"I have no information on that at all, and cannot validate that even slightly," Rumsfeld said.
The article prompted an angry denial from Moscow.
This throws a wrinkle in the story. In addition the Fox story covers the ABC News video that allegedly shows the missing explosives in the al Qaqaa dump on April 18, 2003. This seems to support the New York Times story that the explosives were removed after the US first entered the facility. Seems as if we know less about this story today than we did yesterday. Read the entire story and judge for your self.
ANOTHER UPDATE: This is another quote from an Foxs News article about the missing explosives:
A U.S. Army officer came forward Friday and said a team from the 3rd Infantry Division took about 250 tons of munititions and military material from the Al-Qaqaa (search) munitions base soon after Saddam Hussein's regime fell last year.
Explosives were included in the load taken by the team but Major Austin Pearson said he was unable to say what percentage it accounted for. The Pentagon believes the disclosure helps to explain what happened to 377 tons of explosives that the International Atomic Energy Agency (search) said disappeared after Saddam Hussein's regime fell.
A Pentagon spokesman acknowledged they don't have all the answers and can't yet account for all of the missing material but he said it was a signficant development in unraveling the mystery.
"We've described what we know and as we know more we'll decribe that," said spokesman Larry Dirita.
Pearson, accompanied by Dirita, appeared at a Pentagon news conference to say it was his mission to go the facility and clear material from the base but he could not say what percentage of the material were explosives. He said he was not an explosives expert but instead said his main mission is to clear possibly dangerous material from bases to make them safe for U.S. forces.
This is the same story quoted above. The plot thickens...
Thursday, October 28, 2004
One More Good Story
This is one of those stories that you just know is a publicity stunt, but what good is a stunt if no one knows about it? I don’t care what anyone says, I believe that this guy means what he says and says what he means.
Another Voter Quiz Thingy
 | You preferred Kerry's statements 44% of the time
You preferred Bush's statements 56% of the time Voting purely on the issues you should vote Bush Who would you vote for if you voted on the issues? Find out now! |
See, this guy doesn't think I am a complete wacko. This is a neat quiz because it is just a series of questions and the answers are from each campaign. You don't know from which campaign an answer comes from so it is strictly about the issues.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Catch of the Day
Vietnam Special Forces Veterans Oppose John Kerry More veterans groups are coming out against Kerry. Seems that the press loves his Vietnam service but a large number of veterans don’t. Wonder what that means…
60,000 absentee ballots lost in Broward County. Broward County has got to be the most incompetent place on the planet. In the 2000 election the entire state was won by less than 600 votes, and now 60,000 absentee ballots are missing. I wonder how this will impact the election considering that most absentee ballots are from the military, but then again these may be duplicate votes from New York…
What Would Patton Say About the Present War? I read this today and it brought a tear to my eye. I agree 100% with the author’s assessment of how Patton would handle the Iraq War. We could use a man like him today.
60,000 absentee ballots lost in Broward County. Broward County has got to be the most incompetent place on the planet. In the 2000 election the entire state was won by less than 600 votes, and now 60,000 absentee ballots are missing. I wonder how this will impact the election considering that most absentee ballots are from the military, but then again these may be duplicate votes from New York…
What Would Patton Say About the Present War? I read this today and it brought a tear to my eye. I agree 100% with the author’s assessment of how Patton would handle the Iraq War. We could use a man like him today.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Hero to Both Sides
John Kerry is the only Vietnam War hero to be venerated by both sides of the conflict. It is strange that he only likes to talk about being a US hero not a hero to the North Vietnamese. This is a great article that talks about what the enemy thought of the activities of people like John Kerry. If this does not constitute giving aid and comfort to the enemy, I have no idea what would.
Kerry and Sports
This guy just needs to stop trying to be one of the guys. First it was the Ohio/Michigan flap, then Lambert Field, next came Manny Ortiz and now this story from ESPN. See more sports gaffs from John Kerry at http://www.footballfansfortruth.us/
Everytime he opens his mouth about sports he just proves what a liar he is! If he lies this much about the little stuff, what would he say when it is really important? He is completely clueless...
Everytime he opens his mouth about sports he just proves what a liar he is! If he lies this much about the little stuff, what would he say when it is really important? He is completely clueless...
More on the Explosives
The Drudge Report and other sites are quoting an NBC News story yesterday that indicated that the explosives had already been removed from al Qaqaa before US forces arrived. Wow! I think I said something about this yesterday. Seems highly fishy to me, especially since the New York Times broke the story and CBS was desperately scrambling to get the story out. These are both highly unbiased news sources, as we all know…
Once again we see that this is completely trumped up story that is being driven by politically biased news outlets for the purpose of making the President look bad.
Once again we see that this is completely trumped up story that is being driven by politically biased news outlets for the purpose of making the President look bad.
Monday, October 25, 2004
October Surprise?
http://www.cnn.com/.../iraq.explosives/index.html I believe that we are seeing with the story of the “missing” explosives in Iraq, the first attempt at an October surprise meant to damage the President. If you read this story carefully you will notice that there is no mention of when the explosive disappeared. They were last seen before the US invasion. There is no mention of whether or not the explosives were ever in US custody. The site has not been the responsibility of the US since the June 28 hand over to the Iraqi government. How is this embarrassing for the White House? The report that this is based on is already 15 days old, why is it in all the news outlets today?
http://www.foxnews.com/.../0,2933,136466,00.html Here is a Foxnews version of the story.
http://abcnews.go.com/.../wireStory?id=195620 ABCNews is running the AP version of the story. No new details in this story.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/.../0,,3-1327947,00.html Yet another version of the story.
All other these stories are so incredibly similar and yet no one is really asking the important questions. What percentage of the missing explosives in Iraq does this one site represent – 10%, 20% 100%? Why is the press not lumping this in the same spin as the WMD issue? Maybe Saddam used the explosive to destroy his WMD stock piles after the UN left but before the US troops got there. Maybe he gave the explosives to the al Qiada operatives before the US got to the site. Since no one can say when the stuff was looted how do we know it was looted at all?
Up until today no one gave any thought to how terrorists in Iraq got explosives. They got them by looting military facilities are buying them from someone who has. Does anyone believe that the terrorist manufactured their own explosives? I really think this is a huge non-story
http://www.foxnews.com/.../0,2933,136466,00.html Here is a Foxnews version of the story.
http://abcnews.go.com/.../wireStory?id=195620 ABCNews is running the AP version of the story. No new details in this story.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/.../0,,3-1327947,00.html Yet another version of the story.
All other these stories are so incredibly similar and yet no one is really asking the important questions. What percentage of the missing explosives in Iraq does this one site represent – 10%, 20% 100%? Why is the press not lumping this in the same spin as the WMD issue? Maybe Saddam used the explosive to destroy his WMD stock piles after the UN left but before the US troops got there. Maybe he gave the explosives to the al Qiada operatives before the US got to the site. Since no one can say when the stuff was looted how do we know it was looted at all?
Up until today no one gave any thought to how terrorists in Iraq got explosives. They got them by looting military facilities are buying them from someone who has. Does anyone believe that the terrorist manufactured their own explosives? I really think this is a huge non-story
ACORN
As I do my reading about the election one political group/action committee/whatever keeps popping up in relation to potential voter fraud – ACORN. It is very curious that they do not get more attention from the MSM.
http://newsmax.com/.../120810.shtml This is a story accusing ACORN of registering al Qiada members.
http://www.9news.com/...-c589c01ca7bf This is a story I found a couple weeks ago and am referencing again. It is a story about voter fraud in Colorado.
http://www.acorn.org/ This is the official ACORN web site. You can read what they think about themselves. Like all of these special interest groups they sure sound good on their own site.
http://www.enquirer.com/.../loc_voters08.html This is a story from Ohio about possible ACORN involvement in a voter fraud scheme.
http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/..._id=18041&rfi=6 How about a story from Pennsylvania? All the battleground states seem to have an ACORN scandal.
http://www.woai.com/news/...-BACA-BCE3E385F40B ACRON is at work in Texas too.
I could go on but I think you get my point. This ACORN group needs to be investigated at the highest levels. As a matter of fact I don’t know why the investigation has not already begun and why have the major media outlets not been covering this more closely? This is a big deal. If these people had been working to get Republican voters we wouldn’t hear the end of it.
What is more important than the fact that this is not getting media coverage is the fact that it is happening. I hope that, not matter who wins Nov. 2, there is a thorough investigation of this, and other groups, and that people are prosecuted.
http://newsmax.com/.../120810.shtml This is a story accusing ACORN of registering al Qiada members.
http://www.9news.com/...-c589c01ca7bf This is a story I found a couple weeks ago and am referencing again. It is a story about voter fraud in Colorado.
http://www.acorn.org/ This is the official ACORN web site. You can read what they think about themselves. Like all of these special interest groups they sure sound good on their own site.
http://www.enquirer.com/.../loc_voters08.html This is a story from Ohio about possible ACORN involvement in a voter fraud scheme.
http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/..._id=18041&rfi=6 How about a story from Pennsylvania? All the battleground states seem to have an ACORN scandal.
http://www.woai.com/news/...-BACA-BCE3E385F40B ACRON is at work in Texas too.
I could go on but I think you get my point. This ACORN group needs to be investigated at the highest levels. As a matter of fact I don’t know why the investigation has not already begun and why have the major media outlets not been covering this more closely? This is a big deal. If these people had been working to get Republican voters we wouldn’t hear the end of it.
What is more important than the fact that this is not getting media coverage is the fact that it is happening. I hope that, not matter who wins Nov. 2, there is a thorough investigation of this, and other groups, and that people are prosecuted.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
The George W. Bush Loyalty Quiz
This is a real popular item today so I thought I would try it. http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blgeorgewbushquiz.htm Here are my results from this quiz:
Your score is 9 on a scale of 1 to 10. You are a True Believer in President Bush. Your loyalty and devotion to him is matched only by your desire to see his liberal detractors locked away and declared enemy combatants. If all Americans thought as you did, and were it constitutionally viable, George W. Bush would be president for life.
Then take the John Kerry Loyalty Quiz http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bljohnkerryquiz.htm Here are my results for this one:
Your score is 1 on a scale of 1 to 10. You hate John Kerry with every fiber of your being. He is the embodiment of everything you despise in a politician: a weak, liberal, flip-flopping, elitist, condescending appeaser who threatens all that is good and decent in America. Worst of all, you think he looks French
Seems pretty good but I don’t really fit with either one. I am definitely a Bush supporter but President for life is a little nuts. The Kerry one is off a little, I don’t hate him.
Your score is 9 on a scale of 1 to 10. You are a True Believer in President Bush. Your loyalty and devotion to him is matched only by your desire to see his liberal detractors locked away and declared enemy combatants. If all Americans thought as you did, and were it constitutionally viable, George W. Bush would be president for life.
Then take the John Kerry Loyalty Quiz http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/bljohnkerryquiz.htm Here are my results for this one:
Your score is 1 on a scale of 1 to 10. You hate John Kerry with every fiber of your being. He is the embodiment of everything you despise in a politician: a weak, liberal, flip-flopping, elitist, condescending appeaser who threatens all that is good and decent in America. Worst of all, you think he looks French
Seems pretty good but I don’t really fit with either one. I am definitely a Bush supporter but President for life is a little nuts. The Kerry one is off a little, I don’t hate him.
Friday, October 22, 2004
Political Stereotypes
We have all heard the political stereotypes being thrown around by both political parties – Republicans are old white men, Democrats care about the poor – blah, blah. There are dozens of these stereotypes for each party. But how many people do you know that do not match the common political stereotypes for their party?
Before I go any further I will try to list as many of these stereotypes as I can. I know I will miss some so feel free to remind me.
Democrats – weak on defense, intellectual, environmentalist, gay, anti-business, young, hippies, pro-choice, pro-UN, socialist, communist, anarchist, anti-American, pro-gun control, support higher taxes, support big government, multicultural, progressive, support redistribution of wealth, pro-science, anti-rich, cultured, Pro-free expression, for the common man/woman, inclusive, fans of pop/rock or hip-hop music, media friendly, pro-labor, New Englander, Liberal, liar, pro-separation of church and state
Republican – racist, warmonger, white, male, pro-business, anti-worker, fundamentalist Christian, Nazi, fascist, redneck, pro-personal responsibility, likes country music, ignorant, uneducated, not worldly, isolationist, intolerant, pro-gun, greedy, exploitive, rude, cowboy, NASCAR fan or sports fan in general, Southern, Conservative, anti-old people, hunter, rich, pro-life, anti-gay, anti-science, creationists, against the Arts, pro-censorship, liar, pro school prayer
Ok, I know that these lists are not complete and I know that there are some on here that you might disagree with or feel are inaccurate. That is the point of stereotypes – they do not have to be accurate and frequently are very inaccurate. Take a look at the list. How many of these stereotypes match your beliefs and your party affiliation?
Here are my political beliefs, you tell me what party I belong to (don’t cheat by reading my other posts).
I am a white male who believes in personal responsibility.
I am an agnostic who loves Heavy Metal and Rock music.
I am immensely interested in science and technology and believe that many of society’s problems will be solved by the proper application of both.
I believe in free markets and free trade.
I do not like the UN but I am not an isolationist.
I do not hunt.
I am not rich.
I believe that evolution is more likely than creationism to be able explain human origins.
I have attended college but I have no degree, yet.
I think that immigration is important to the future of the country but I support English only rules for government and schools.
I think the US-Mexico boarder is in need of greater security (as is the US-Canadian boarder), but I think we need to make it easier for Mexicans to enter the country legally. I love art in all of its forms but I do not think the government should spend the people’s money supporting it.
I am not worried about outsourcing of jobs to India even though I work in a call center (I actually think it is a great thing to a degree).
I am against censorship but I think most people have no idea what censorship really is.
I am a Patriot but I really love our friends from all over the planet (no matter what country you are from).
I hate Michael Moore!
So there you have it, what party do I belong too? This is not too tough to figure out. How do you fit into the common stereotypes? Do you think that the political parties do a good job representing your views? I believe that both the Democrat Party and the Republican Party have gone to the extreme in many of their views and have forgotten that most people are in the middle.
Before I go any further I will try to list as many of these stereotypes as I can. I know I will miss some so feel free to remind me.
Democrats – weak on defense, intellectual, environmentalist, gay, anti-business, young, hippies, pro-choice, pro-UN, socialist, communist, anarchist, anti-American, pro-gun control, support higher taxes, support big government, multicultural, progressive, support redistribution of wealth, pro-science, anti-rich, cultured, Pro-free expression, for the common man/woman, inclusive, fans of pop/rock or hip-hop music, media friendly, pro-labor, New Englander, Liberal, liar, pro-separation of church and state
Republican – racist, warmonger, white, male, pro-business, anti-worker, fundamentalist Christian, Nazi, fascist, redneck, pro-personal responsibility, likes country music, ignorant, uneducated, not worldly, isolationist, intolerant, pro-gun, greedy, exploitive, rude, cowboy, NASCAR fan or sports fan in general, Southern, Conservative, anti-old people, hunter, rich, pro-life, anti-gay, anti-science, creationists, against the Arts, pro-censorship, liar, pro school prayer
Ok, I know that these lists are not complete and I know that there are some on here that you might disagree with or feel are inaccurate. That is the point of stereotypes – they do not have to be accurate and frequently are very inaccurate. Take a look at the list. How many of these stereotypes match your beliefs and your party affiliation?
Here are my political beliefs, you tell me what party I belong to (don’t cheat by reading my other posts).
I am a white male who believes in personal responsibility.
I am an agnostic who loves Heavy Metal and Rock music.
I am immensely interested in science and technology and believe that many of society’s problems will be solved by the proper application of both.
I believe in free markets and free trade.
I do not like the UN but I am not an isolationist.
I do not hunt.
I am not rich.
I believe that evolution is more likely than creationism to be able explain human origins.
I have attended college but I have no degree, yet.
I think that immigration is important to the future of the country but I support English only rules for government and schools.
I think the US-Mexico boarder is in need of greater security (as is the US-Canadian boarder), but I think we need to make it easier for Mexicans to enter the country legally. I love art in all of its forms but I do not think the government should spend the people’s money supporting it.
I am not worried about outsourcing of jobs to India even though I work in a call center (I actually think it is a great thing to a degree).
I am against censorship but I think most people have no idea what censorship really is.
I am a Patriot but I really love our friends from all over the planet (no matter what country you are from).
I hate Michael Moore!
So there you have it, what party do I belong too? This is not too tough to figure out. How do you fit into the common stereotypes? Do you think that the political parties do a good job representing your views? I believe that both the Democrat Party and the Republican Party have gone to the extreme in many of their views and have forgotten that most people are in the middle.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Things I have Found Interesting Today
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041021/D85S0AF00.html When I was younger I loved Bill Cosby, then a few years ago he seemed to loose it. In the last few months he has given a series of speeches that have cause quite a stir. Now I think he is doing a great job at shaking people up, making them think. This one is not earth shattering but it is extremely important.
http://news.yahoo.com/..._041021010226&printer=1 This one has been going around today but I just think this is a priceless example of double standards. Evil Dick got a flu shot and John Kerry and company attack him, but St. Bill got his and there is no outrage from the Kerry camp. Why? http://www.cbsnews.com/...health/main650222.shtml
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/news/44435.php Once again the double standard raises its ugly head. Why is no one complaining about this movie being on TV before the election but Sinclair is somehow breaking the law?
http://news.yahoo.com/..._041021010226&printer=1 This one has been going around today but I just think this is a priceless example of double standards. Evil Dick got a flu shot and John Kerry and company attack him, but St. Bill got his and there is no outrage from the Kerry camp. Why? http://www.cbsnews.com/...health/main650222.shtml
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/news/44435.php Once again the double standard raises its ugly head. Why is no one complaining about this movie being on TV before the election but Sinclair is somehow breaking the law?
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Jimmy Carter is Insane
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6281085 He proves with this interview that he has completely lost his mind. Why do people still listen to this loon? To think that we actually elected this man President...
EDIT: I am adding my responce to the comments here because I cannot format the text in the comments section. Sorry for the long post!
Jimmy Carter Bullsh*t from Hardball
In response to your question, this is why I, a “reasonable intelligent person” would “question his intellectual ability or judgment.”
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you the question about…the Revolutionary War as it was fought out in the South in those last years of the War, insurgency against a powerful British force, do you see any parallels between the fighting that we did on our side and the fighting that is going on in Iraq today?
This is a stupid question designed to plug Carter’s book while attacking the current administration.
CARTER: Well, one parallel is that the Revolutionary War, more than any other war up until recently, has been the most bloody war we‘ve fought.
This statement is complete crap. It has no basis in fact, whatsoever. Let’s look at the facts related to US war casualties “until recently:”
American Revolution – total killed 4435, wounded 6188, duration 8 years.
War of 1812 – total killed 2260, wounded 4505, duration 3 years.
Mexican War – total killed 13,283, wounded 4152, duration 2 years.
Civil War (Union) – total killed 364,511, wounded 281,881, duration 5 years.
Spanish-American War – total killed 2446, wounded 1662, duration less than a year.
World War I – total killed 116,516, wounded 204,002, duration just over a year.
World War II – total killed 405,399, wounded 671,846, duration 4 years.
Korean War – total killed 36,574, wounded 103,284, duration 3 years.
Vietnam War – total killed 58,209, wounded 153,303, duration 9 years.
Persian Gulf War – total killed 382, wounded 467, duration a few months.
Just a brief look at this list shows that the American Revolution is not even in the top half of our “most bloody wars.” Why would he say this? Either he is stupid or he is a liar.
I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war.
This is a complete revisionist fantasy, deliberately phrased as to use current Democratic talking points – “It was an unnecessary war.” He is talking exclusively about Iraq here.
Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the colonial‘s really legitimate complaints and requests the war could have been avoided completely, and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way.
This is what is commonly referred to mental masturbation. It is in the same league as people who like to speculate on why Hitler lost WWII. He assumes that Canada, India and Australia could have peacefully gained their independence without the American Revolution. This is known as a fallacious association.
I think in many ways the British were very misled in going to war against America and in trying to enforce their will on people who were quite different from them at the time.
Again, he is using party talking points here. Just how were the British misled into the American Revolution?
MATTHEWS: The president has said he had miscalculated in terms of not realizing how the war would proceed from the initial knockout of Saddam‘s forces, including the Revolutionary Guard, and then what he faced on the ground in terms of the insurgency.
Whatever…
Do you think as an historian you would have foreseen, had you been president, the nationalistic fight of those people in Iraq once we got in there?
As a historian, the idea that you can foresee future events is ludicrous. No one can foresee the future, not even Jimmy Carter.
CARTER: Well, I think almost any reasonable person who knew history would say that you can‘t go into an alien environment and force by rule of arms by forcing the people to adopt a strange concept.
This is truly an amazing thing to say. The implication is that the Iraqi people are not capable of understanding democracy. I am a reasonable person and I believe that the Iraqi people are more than ready to decide their own fate rather than living in fear and terror.
And also when we were so destructive in going into Iraq with tens of thousands of innocent civilians killed and now it‘s still, up until this moment now many months later there is still a great deal of animosity toward American troops. And there is no doubt that American troops‘ presence is stimulating additional violence.
There was a war, people died, it is a tragedy but this is clearly overstated. He should read “Dawn Over Baghdad” by Karl Zinmeister. The Iraq War is the most “sensitive” war any nation has ever fought. The US military’s ability to pinpoint a target is unmatched in history. No one does it better.
MATTHEWS: What do you make of this new philosophy, Mr. President, that we can go into countries like Iraq and that we can use our force of arms and our economic might to transform them into democracies? It‘s the new conservative philosophy. It‘s the Bush doctrine, whatever you want to call it. What do you make of it?
Another leading question. This is not a new philosophy, it is only new in the context of no longer waiting for an attack before we strike the bad guys.
CARTER: I don‘t think it‘s ever been proven to be accurate as a premise that you can go into an alien society, win with force of arms, destroying a major portion of that country and killing their people to make them adopt a new form of government and to accept new rulers.
Wow! This guy is a historian, as Chris Matthews has repeatedly pointed out, and he does not believe that this can be done? Has he forgotten Germany after WWII? What about Japan? Italy? These countries were completely transformed as a direct result of military and economic action, not internal revolution. History is full of these types of transformations.
Obviously, the only way out of this quagmire that we have formed in Iraq now is to have some guarantee of withdrawal of American troops and turning their premises of the Iraqis over to them politically and to the international community to help on an equal basis and a shared basis with many allies both in economic and military concerns in the future.
This is getting very tiring, after this point I will be done with this crap. Iraq is not a quagmire. Is it a difficult project? Yes. Will US troops be there for a long time? Yes. We will be based in Iraq much the same way as we spent the last 50 years in Germany. The boys are not coming home. Get over it!
I have no more time or energy for this. I hope this clarifies my opinion.
EDIT: I am adding my responce to the comments here because I cannot format the text in the comments section. Sorry for the long post!
Jimmy Carter Bullsh*t from Hardball
In response to your question, this is why I, a “reasonable intelligent person” would “question his intellectual ability or judgment.”
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you the question about…the Revolutionary War as it was fought out in the South in those last years of the War, insurgency against a powerful British force, do you see any parallels between the fighting that we did on our side and the fighting that is going on in Iraq today?
This is a stupid question designed to plug Carter’s book while attacking the current administration.
CARTER: Well, one parallel is that the Revolutionary War, more than any other war up until recently, has been the most bloody war we‘ve fought.
This statement is complete crap. It has no basis in fact, whatsoever. Let’s look at the facts related to US war casualties “until recently:”
American Revolution – total killed 4435, wounded 6188, duration 8 years.
War of 1812 – total killed 2260, wounded 4505, duration 3 years.
Mexican War – total killed 13,283, wounded 4152, duration 2 years.
Civil War (Union) – total killed 364,511, wounded 281,881, duration 5 years.
Spanish-American War – total killed 2446, wounded 1662, duration less than a year.
World War I – total killed 116,516, wounded 204,002, duration just over a year.
World War II – total killed 405,399, wounded 671,846, duration 4 years.
Korean War – total killed 36,574, wounded 103,284, duration 3 years.
Vietnam War – total killed 58,209, wounded 153,303, duration 9 years.
Persian Gulf War – total killed 382, wounded 467, duration a few months.
Just a brief look at this list shows that the American Revolution is not even in the top half of our “most bloody wars.” Why would he say this? Either he is stupid or he is a liar.
I think another parallel is that in some ways the Revolutionary War could have been avoided. It was an unnecessary war.
This is a complete revisionist fantasy, deliberately phrased as to use current Democratic talking points – “It was an unnecessary war.” He is talking exclusively about Iraq here.
Had the British Parliament been a little more sensitive to the colonial‘s really legitimate complaints and requests the war could have been avoided completely, and of course now we would have been a free country now as is Canada and India and Australia, having gotten our independence in a nonviolent way.
This is what is commonly referred to mental masturbation. It is in the same league as people who like to speculate on why Hitler lost WWII. He assumes that Canada, India and Australia could have peacefully gained their independence without the American Revolution. This is known as a fallacious association.
I think in many ways the British were very misled in going to war against America and in trying to enforce their will on people who were quite different from them at the time.
Again, he is using party talking points here. Just how were the British misled into the American Revolution?
MATTHEWS: The president has said he had miscalculated in terms of not realizing how the war would proceed from the initial knockout of Saddam‘s forces, including the Revolutionary Guard, and then what he faced on the ground in terms of the insurgency.
Whatever…
Do you think as an historian you would have foreseen, had you been president, the nationalistic fight of those people in Iraq once we got in there?
As a historian, the idea that you can foresee future events is ludicrous. No one can foresee the future, not even Jimmy Carter.
CARTER: Well, I think almost any reasonable person who knew history would say that you can‘t go into an alien environment and force by rule of arms by forcing the people to adopt a strange concept.
This is truly an amazing thing to say. The implication is that the Iraqi people are not capable of understanding democracy. I am a reasonable person and I believe that the Iraqi people are more than ready to decide their own fate rather than living in fear and terror.
And also when we were so destructive in going into Iraq with tens of thousands of innocent civilians killed and now it‘s still, up until this moment now many months later there is still a great deal of animosity toward American troops. And there is no doubt that American troops‘ presence is stimulating additional violence.
There was a war, people died, it is a tragedy but this is clearly overstated. He should read “Dawn Over Baghdad” by Karl Zinmeister. The Iraq War is the most “sensitive” war any nation has ever fought. The US military’s ability to pinpoint a target is unmatched in history. No one does it better.
MATTHEWS: What do you make of this new philosophy, Mr. President, that we can go into countries like Iraq and that we can use our force of arms and our economic might to transform them into democracies? It‘s the new conservative philosophy. It‘s the Bush doctrine, whatever you want to call it. What do you make of it?
Another leading question. This is not a new philosophy, it is only new in the context of no longer waiting for an attack before we strike the bad guys.
CARTER: I don‘t think it‘s ever been proven to be accurate as a premise that you can go into an alien society, win with force of arms, destroying a major portion of that country and killing their people to make them adopt a new form of government and to accept new rulers.
Wow! This guy is a historian, as Chris Matthews has repeatedly pointed out, and he does not believe that this can be done? Has he forgotten Germany after WWII? What about Japan? Italy? These countries were completely transformed as a direct result of military and economic action, not internal revolution. History is full of these types of transformations.
Obviously, the only way out of this quagmire that we have formed in Iraq now is to have some guarantee of withdrawal of American troops and turning their premises of the Iraqis over to them politically and to the international community to help on an equal basis and a shared basis with many allies both in economic and military concerns in the future.
This is getting very tiring, after this point I will be done with this crap. Iraq is not a quagmire. Is it a difficult project? Yes. Will US troops be there for a long time? Yes. We will be based in Iraq much the same way as we spent the last 50 years in Germany. The boys are not coming home. Get over it!
I have no more time or energy for this. I hope this clarifies my opinion.
What Good is a Poll?
Everyday there is a new poll showing who is in the lead in the presidential race. Today it is Bush on top and tomorrow it will be Kerry. Change the channel and the results will be completely switched. What good are these polls? Does anyone out there believe them? Take a look at what all the polls lined up look like. You might decide that the polls are of some value after all. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html
Hump-day News Stories
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle...storyID=6548408 Tommy Franks is one of the greatest American generals. Too bad he retired.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15593 It is illegal to teach Christianity in the public school system but it is OK to teach Islam. I am really beginning to hate the public school system…
http://www.adn.com/.../5691080p-5623988c.html News paper endorsements are not my favorite things. In fact I think the media should never endorse a candidate in a political campaign. That being said why is it OK for the Democrats to get an endorsement from a news paper but not a Republican?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15593 It is illegal to teach Christianity in the public school system but it is OK to teach Islam. I am really beginning to hate the public school system…
http://www.adn.com/.../5691080p-5623988c.html News paper endorsements are not my favorite things. In fact I think the media should never endorse a candidate in a political campaign. That being said why is it OK for the Democrats to get an endorsement from a news paper but not a Republican?
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
When the Man Comes Around
When The Man Comes Around This is a great piece of animation! Make sure you have sound!
Beldar Asks...
http://beldar.blogs.com/.../beldar_asks_his.html This is one of the best posts on who you should vote for and why. Everyone needs to read this.
Good Finds of the Day
http://slate.msn.com/.../speed/100 This one is just priceless! Love that hair Mr. Edwards. Thanks to everything is wrong for digging this one up.
http://www.turkishpress.com/.../news.asp?ID=30908 Vietnamese-Americans are not going to be supporting Kerry and I can’t blame them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/.../0,13918,1329858,00.html The Guardian got what it wanted – a bunch of pissed off Americans. Brilliant!
http://www.turkishpress.com/.../news.asp?ID=30908 Vietnamese-Americans are not going to be supporting Kerry and I can’t blame them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/.../0,13918,1329858,00.html The Guardian got what it wanted – a bunch of pissed off Americans. Brilliant!
How to Vote
With all of the talk on the news lately about disenfranchisement and voter irregularities from the 2000 election and how it will happen again, I thought this would be a good time to talk about how to vote. It seems that many of the problems with the 2000 vote were attributed to confusion among voters. In an effort to do my part in eliminating confusion here is my step by step guide on how to vote:
1. Register – In order to vote in the election you must be a registered voter. Each state has there own process for registering. You can usually find out how to vote by checking your states voter registration instruction on-line. Google is a great tool for finding this info. Arizona has an on-line registration form or you can request the form be mailed to you. I am sure almost every state has a similar system. To be a registered voter you MUST BE A US CITIZEN. This is crucial. Most states may have additional prohibitions against felons voting. Check your local laws. There is a deadline to register – most states require that you submit your registration form no less than 30 days from the elections. If you send it in later too bad, you will not be voting in this election, but you will be registered for the next election. Never register from partisan hacks that come to your door or approach you in the mall. They cannot be trusted and if you register for a party they are not being paid by, your form may just end up in the trash.
2. Review your sample ballot and voting guide – Once you have been registered to vote you will receive your voter registration card and the voting guide. The voting guide will have a sample ballot. Read these materials, they will give all the info on the various candidates and propositions that are on the ballot. The sample ballot also has the information about where you are to vote. This is extremely important – you can only vote in you assigned precinct and your assigned polling place. If you don’t know where it is call the number on the ballot and get directions. Drive to the polling place before the election so you know how to get there.
3. Vote – This is the point of the whole process. Don’t go through steps one and two and then forget to vote on Election Day! When you arrive at the polling place you will need to sign in. They should have a list of registered votes for the polls. If you are in the right place, and you are a registered voter, your name will be on the list. Depending on your state’s laws you may need to show ID or a voter registration card. Be prepared to do this if required. If your name is not on the list you may request a provisional ballot. Follow the instructions on this ballot, but be warned, there is no guarantee that the provisional ballot will be counted. Once you are given you ballot and are in the voting booth READ THE INSTRUCTIONS! There will be instructions on the ballot as well as instruction in the voting booth. If you do not understand how to vote ask a volunteer. Vote.
That’s all there is too it! Remember, voting is a right and a responsibility and like any other responsibility you must be willing to do your part. See you on Election Day!
1. Register – In order to vote in the election you must be a registered voter. Each state has there own process for registering. You can usually find out how to vote by checking your states voter registration instruction on-line. Google is a great tool for finding this info. Arizona has an on-line registration form or you can request the form be mailed to you. I am sure almost every state has a similar system. To be a registered voter you MUST BE A US CITIZEN. This is crucial. Most states may have additional prohibitions against felons voting. Check your local laws. There is a deadline to register – most states require that you submit your registration form no less than 30 days from the elections. If you send it in later too bad, you will not be voting in this election, but you will be registered for the next election. Never register from partisan hacks that come to your door or approach you in the mall. They cannot be trusted and if you register for a party they are not being paid by, your form may just end up in the trash.
2. Review your sample ballot and voting guide – Once you have been registered to vote you will receive your voter registration card and the voting guide. The voting guide will have a sample ballot. Read these materials, they will give all the info on the various candidates and propositions that are on the ballot. The sample ballot also has the information about where you are to vote. This is extremely important – you can only vote in you assigned precinct and your assigned polling place. If you don’t know where it is call the number on the ballot and get directions. Drive to the polling place before the election so you know how to get there.
3. Vote – This is the point of the whole process. Don’t go through steps one and two and then forget to vote on Election Day! When you arrive at the polling place you will need to sign in. They should have a list of registered votes for the polls. If you are in the right place, and you are a registered voter, your name will be on the list. Depending on your state’s laws you may need to show ID or a voter registration card. Be prepared to do this if required. If your name is not on the list you may request a provisional ballot. Follow the instructions on this ballot, but be warned, there is no guarantee that the provisional ballot will be counted. Once you are given you ballot and are in the voting booth READ THE INSTRUCTIONS! There will be instructions on the ballot as well as instruction in the voting booth. If you do not understand how to vote ask a volunteer. Vote.
That’s all there is too it! Remember, voting is a right and a responsibility and like any other responsibility you must be willing to do your part. See you on Election Day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)