Sunday, October 31, 2004

KerrySpot For Election Details

Be sure to check KerrySpot for up to date election details from the insiders.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Good Employment News

Although the official numbers will not be released until after the election, and the main stream media absolutely will not allow this information to make it to the public before the election, the employment numbers for October will show very strong growth of 175,000 jobs on the payroll survey.

Powerline has posted that if Kerry wins, these numbers will be viewed as part of the Kerry economy. If that makes you as sick to your stomach as it makes me, make sure you vote, and make sure your friends vote.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Kerry Polls the Bin Laden Tape

Osama Bin Laden's tape provoked different responses from the two Presidential candidates. George Bush made a statement of unity, vowing that all Americans whether Democrat or Republican, were resolute in their determination to defeat terror. John Kerry on the other hand, took a poll to determine what his response should be. A poll. That is a perfect summary of John Kerry as a Presidential candidate. He has no convictions, so he polls to determine his response. This should be expected. His entire stance on Iraq has been determined by what is politically expedient at the moment.

Kerry's polling for a response did not go unnoticed by the Bush/Cheney Campaign, Vice President Cheney, campaigning in New Mexico had this to say:

"The thing that I find amazing about it is that John Kerry's first response was to go conduct a poll," Cheney told supporters in Fort Dodge, Iowa. "He went into the field ... to find out what he should say about this tape of Osama bin Laden." It's as though he doesn't know what he believes until he has to go and check the polls, his finger in the air, to see which way the wind is blowing and then he'll make a decision," said the vice president, who offered no evidence to back up his claim. "George Bush doesn't need a poll to know what he believes, especially about Osama bin Laden. I don't think that's a man who is up to the task of being commander in chief," Cheney said of Kerry.

No core beliefs and the inability to take a stand on any position without checking a poll. No one in America, including John Kerry, knows what he truly believes about the war on terror and the battle of Iraq. Kerry's record of being on the wrong side of history on every issue of national security for the last 35 years.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Roundup of Iraqi Blogger Endorsements

Anticipatory Retaliation has a round up of the endorsements here.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Wingmen For Bush

At least 250 of the men who served with John Kerry have devoted the last few months of their life trying to inform the public that he is unfit to be Commander in Chief. From (they say) his actions while in Vietnam, to his very well known anti-American activities upon his return they have tried to warn the public that John Kerry does not have the character to lead the country. While the Bush Administration has never attacked Kerry's service record, (in fact President Bush has complimented Kerry's service on multiple occasions), the Kerry Campaign and the rest of the Democratic Party has attacked the President's service in the Texas Air National Guard. While the men who served with John Kerry are trying to warn the country about Kerry, President Bush's brothers in arms have come out for the President. They have a website called WingmenForBush. They have also issued a press release, condeming John Kerry's denigration of the President's service in the TANG during an interview on the Today Show:

John Kerry, your statement on national television, which implied that George W. Bush did not put his life on the line indicated that you simply don't know what it means to fly fighter aircraft. This has historically been the most dangerous assignment that any military officer could choose, and that danger exists in training for combat as well as in combat. Mr. Kerry, your comments disparage the National Guard and are a disgrace, especially in light of the current commitment of Guard troops to Iraqi Freedom. I flew with George W. Bush, and I can attest to his skill as a fighter pilot. All fighter pilots put our lives on the line every time we strap on a jet fighter. Bush stepped up and volunteered for this very risky service to his country in a time of crises.

This, you can be sure, will not make it to the mainstream media.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Full Osama Tape Shows Damaged Al-Queda

The New York Post has reported that the full 18 minute tape of Osama Bin Laden shows a dispirted leader who talks about the effects of the unrelenting manhunt for him and other leaders of Al-Queda:

Osama bin Laden doesn't seem nearly so cocky in the unedited version of a videotape aired on al-Jazeera, complaining that the manhunt against him has hampered al Qaeda. AFP/Getty ImagesBin Laden the impotent / Opinion: Page 27 Osama bin Laden's newest tape may have thrust him to the forefront of the presidential election, but what was not seen was the cave-dwelling terror lord talking about the setbacks al Qaeda has faced in recent months.

Officials said that in the 18-minute long tape — of which only six minutes were aired on the al-Jazeera Arab television network in the Middle East on Friday — bin Laden bemoans the recent democratic elections in Afghanistan and the lack of violence involved with it.

On the tape, bin Laden also says his terror organization has been hurt by the U.S. military's unrelenting manhunt for him and his cohorts on the Afghan-Pakistani border.

A portion of the left-out footage includes a tirade aimed at President Bush and his father, former President George H.W. Bush, claiming the war in Iraq is purely over oil.

So in the twelve minutes of tape not broadcast by Al-Jazeera or covered by US media, Bin laden reveals just hoe effective the war against terror has been. he is apparently upset that the elections in Afghanistan were allowed to take place with no violence. He rants against the President and his father. He want Bush gone, and he is hoping that the American electorate takes care of that for him. He cannot defeat teh US militarily, but he can win the war on terror if he is able to convince Americans it is not worth the price. We will see.

(Via Powerline)

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Chris Heinz: President Bush is a "Cokehead"

The son of the woman who wants to be first lady has called the President a "cokehead", referred to Republicans as "the enemy" and alluded to Israel controlling the US Government. Suffice it to say the apple does not fall very far from the tree. His statements were not made privately to a group of friends. No, they were made at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. This is the mindset of the "opposition party" and it's leadership.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Historian Paul Johnson: Kerry Must Be Stopped

Paul Johnson is one the pre-eminent historians of the last 50 years. He has written 28 books including The History of Christianity (1976), The History of the Jews (1987), The Intellectuals (1988), and The Birth of the Modern (1991), Modern Times (1983), A History of The American People (1999), and Art: A New History (2003). He is revered across the globe for his writings, many of which have changed the way generations view history. Although he himself is British he believes, "The creation of the United States of America is the greatest of all human adventures".

Paul Johnson has now spoken out about this election, and the title of his article says it all, "Campaign 2004: High Stakes: Quite simply, Kerry must be stopped; and Bush must win". The article, and his endorsement of President Bush, is the most eloquent explanation of the stakes of the current war and of the characteristics need in a leader to win that war, as has been written. An excerpt:

The great issue in the 2004 election—it seems to me as an Englishman—is, How seriously does the United States take its role as a world leader, and how far will it make sacrifices, and risk unpopularity, to discharge this duty with success and honor? In short, this is an election of the greatest significance, for Americans and all the rest of us. It will redefine what kind of a country the United States is, and how far the rest of the world can rely upon her to preserve the general safety and protect our civilization.

Yes. This election will redefine America. We will decide how seriously we take our role as world leader. We can either lead the world, or we can reduce ourselves to just another player in the world community, whose future is dependent of teh whims of institutions like the UN. He continues:

When George W. Bush was first elected, he stirred none of these feelings, at home or abroad. He seems to have sought the presidency more for dynastic than for any other reasons. September 11 changed all that dramatically. It gave his presidency a purpose and a theme, and imposed on him a mission. Now, we can all criticize the way he has pursued that mission. He has certainly made mistakes in detail, notably in underestimating the problems that have inevitably followed the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, and overestimating the ability of U.S. forces to tackle them. On the other hand, he has been absolutely right in estimating the seriousness of the threat international terrorism poses to the entire world and on the need for the United States to meet this threat with all the means at its disposal and for as long as may be necessary. Equally, he has placed these considerations right at the center of his policies and continued to do so with total consistency, adamantine determination, and remarkable courage, despite sneers and jeers, ridicule and venomous opposition, and much unpopularity.

There is something grimly admirable about his stoicism in the face of reverses, which reminds me of other moments in history: the dark winter Washington faced in 1777-78, a time to “try men’s souls,” as Thomas Paine put it, and the long succession of military failures Lincoln had to bear and explain before he found a commander who could take the cause to victory. There is nothing glamorous about the Bush presidency and nothing exhilarating. It is all hard pounding, as Wellington said of Waterloo, adding: “Let us see who can pound the hardest.” Mastering terrorism fired by a religious fanaticism straight from the Dark Ages requires hard pounding of the dullest, most repetitious kind, in which spectacular victories are not to be looked for, and all we can expect are “blood, toil, tears, and sweat.” However, something persuades me that Bush— with his grimness and doggedness, his lack of sparkle but his enviable concentration on the central issue—is the president America needs at this difficult time.

If there is one feeling Bush supporters have developed over the past three years it is admiration for the President's continued struggle to protect this country in the face of relentless opposition from those who would have us delgate our national security to others. We have come to respect this President, not because of his glamourous lifestyle or charm, but because he has the character for the "hard pounding" to which Mr. Johnson refers. His conclusion:

Behind this second line of adversaries there is a far more sinister third. All the elements of anarchy and unrest in the Middle East and Muslim Asia and Africa are clamoring and praying for a Kerry victory. The mullahs and the imams, the gunmen and their arms suppliers and paymasters, all those who stand to profit—politically, financially, and emotionally—from the total breakdown of order, the eclipse of democracy, and the defeat of the rule of law, want to see Bush replaced. His defeat on November 2 will be greeted, in Arab capitals, by shouts of triumph from fundamentalist mobs of exactly the kind that greeted the news that the Twin Towers had collapsed and their occupants been exterminated.

I cannot recall any election when the enemies of America all over the world have been so unanimous in hoping for the victory of one candidate. That is the overwhelming reason that John Kerry must be defeated, heavily and comprehensively.

America's enemies have adopted the same mantra as the left in this country, "Anybody But Bush". The terrorists and the tyrants who harbor them know that they have but one hope, to defeat President Bush through politics on the ground in America. The terrorists will celebrate his defeat as a victory, in fact, they will view it as a bigger victory than was September 11th. The Left in America and around the world will also celebrate his defeat as a victory. This convergence of thought between the Left and our enemies was highlighted by the release of the Osama Bin Laden video last week. Osama used precisely the same rhetoric as many of the President's opponents in this country, not just on the Left, but his opponents in the supposedly "main stream" Democratic Party. What should concern Americans is that the Democratic party and the Left are becoming undistinguishable.

Paul Johnson sees the stakes of this election. he understands that it will be a turning point in the history of the country, and therefore the world. If we shiirk our responsibilities at this time. If we choose the line of least resistance, or to use John Kerry's own words, if we chose to return to a time when we thought terrorism was just a "nuisance", then the dynamic of the world will change. We will no longer be the leader of the world, we will be a member of a world body. Another nation, equal in strength and importance and role to France, Russia, etc. For the sake of this country, for the sake of the world, pray that Americans understand this fact and vote in large numbers to re-elect President Bush.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Saturday, October 30, 2004

The Political Impact of the Bin laden Tape

It should be expected that the political implications of the Bin Laden tape would dominate political discussion considering it was aired only days before the presidential election and was made with the express purpose of influencing the outcome. There are two excellent articles on the impact of the tape. The first is by David Brooks in the New York Times. An excerpt:

Here was this monster who killed 3,000 of our fellows showing up on our TV screens, trying to insert himself into our election, trying to lecture us on who is lying and who is telling the truth. Here was this villain traipsing through his own propaganda spiel with copycat Michael Moore rhetoric about George Bush in the schoolroom, and Jeb Bush and the 2000 Florida election.

Here was this deranged killer spreading absurd theories about the American monarchy and threatening to murder more of us unless we do what he says.

One felt all the old emotions. Who does he think he is, and who does he think we are?

One of the crucial issues of this election is, Which candidate fundamentally gets the evil represented by this man? Which of these two guys understands it deep in his gut - not just in his brain or in his policy statements, but who feels it so deep in his soul that it consumes him?

It's quite clear from the polls that most Americans fundamentally think Bush does get this. Last March, Americans preferred Bush over Kerry in fighting terrorism by 60 percent to 33 percent, according to the Gallup Poll. Now, after a furious campaign and months of criticism, that number is unchanged. Bush is untouched on this issue.

Bush's response yesterday to the video was exactly right. He said we would not be intimidated. He tried to take the video out of the realm of crass politics by mentioning Kerry by name and assuring the country that he was sure Kerry agreed with him.

Kerry did say that we are all united in the fight against bin Laden, but he just couldn't help himself. His first instinct was to get political.

On Milwaukee television, he used the video as an occasion to attack the president: "He didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down Osama bin Laden. He outsourced the job." Kerry continued with a little riff from his stump speech, "I am absolutely confident I have the ability to make America safer."

Read the whole article and email it to everyone you know. The second article is by Bill Kristol and Stefen Hayes in The Weekly Standard. They point out the disgusting opportunism of the Kerry Campaign's politicization of the Bin Laden tape:

IN THEIR FORMAL STATEMENTS reacting to the new videotape from Osama bin Laden, both President Bush and John Kerry were statesmanlike. Each man called for Americans to unite against terror and vowed to defeat bin Laden and al Qaeda.

The Bush campaign wisely avoided going political. But the Kerry campaign--in comments from a top adviser and the candidate himself--did not.

Kerry gave what appear to be his first extemporaneous comments about the tape in a previously scheduled satellite interview with Kathy Mykleby, a veteran anchor with WISN TV in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

"I find myself in the unexpected position of giving you breaking news at this moment because I don't know if you're aware of the Al-Jazeera tape that has just aired with Osama bin Laden admitting to the 9-11 attacks for the first time. What is your reaction?" Mykleby asked.

"My reaction," said Kerry, "is that all of us in this country are completely united. Democrat, Republican--there's no such thing. There's just Americans, and we are united in hunting down and capturing or killing those who conducted behind that raid. We always knew it was Osama bin Laden."

Mykleby followed up: "What do you think impact of this videotape might have on our election?"

"I don't think any," Kerry answered. "I think Americans understand we are living in a dangerous age." So far, so good.

But Kerry fi couldn't resist politicizing the tape: "I am prepared to wage a more effective war on terror than George Bush," he added.

Kerry's comment was unfortunate, and mild compared

to those made later in the day by his senior foreign policy adviser, Richard Holbrooke.

The tape itself is an indictment of the Democratic Party's rhetoric of the past three years. It is as though Osama bin Laden is reading directly from the DNC's talking points. I am sorry but it is true. If you would like to know how true, read this round up of comments by members of the Democratic Party as compared to Bin Laden's comments in the tape (and another page here).

The similarity between Bin Laden's statements and the DNC's talking points has not gone unnoticed on the left either. Kerryspot has more on the subject here.

The Democrats do indeed need to take a long hard look in the mirror. They have become a party of demogoguery and conspiracy theories. So much so that their rhetoric is indistinguishable from that of Osama bin Laden. Think about that for a moment. No, the Democrats are not threatening to blow up a city like bin Laden, but their view of America's role ion the woprld and of teh current administration is the same, and that should raise flags for the more reasonable members of the party. Until the mainstream segment of the Democratic Party throws out the Michael Moore wing, currently led by John Kerry, they will have to be satisfied with being the minority party. The American people, who do realize that the real threat is not George Bush or America as a whole, will not allow the left fringe of that party to run the country. It is pretty simple.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

President Bush Draws Huge Crowd in Minnesota

President Bush drew a huge crowd at the Target Center in Minneapolis today. Powerline has the story and a picture and is planning on updating.

If you are a Kerry supporter you have to be more than a little worried that two days before the election the President is campaigning in the heart of the blue states.

While you are there read this post at Powerline as well. It sconsists of an email sent to Powerline from a former Minnesota Senator.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Walter Cronkite: Rove Behind Bin Laden Tape

And here it is, the epitomy of the mindset of the Democrats and the left for the past three years. Walter Cronkite asserted last night on Larry King Live that Karl Rove was probably behind the recently released Osama Bin Laden video. This is a developing story on the Drudge Report. According to Drudge, Cronkite made this unbelieveable statement to Larry King:

"inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing."

That's right fols, Karl Rove has Bin laden on a chain in the basement of the White House wher he himslef directed the latest video. This takes the cake. The Democrats have gone completely off the rails in this election. Their desire to defeat George Bush has led them to believe and assert the most ridiculous conspiracy theories, including that he stole the election in Florida, that he knew about 9/11 before it happened, that he lied to go to war, that he went to war for oil, that he went to war for Halliburton, that he went to war for political gain, that he went to war for an oil pipeline in Afghanistan, that he intentionally orders the deaths of civilians in Iraq, that he has a secret plan for a draft, that he has a secret plan to end social security, that he has a plan to declare martial law under the Patriot act. You name it and some prominent Democrat has probably said it. Teresa Heinz Kerry has suggested that Bush would produce Bin laden before the election. i assumed she meant Bush would capture him, I did not know she meant produce a speech for him.

Do not make the mistake of believing that only fringe elements of the Democratic Party believe and promote conspiracy theories. The senior most members of the party have taken the lead in spreading the rumors. Kerry himself has asserted on multiple occasions that the President has a scret plan for a draft. Senator Tom Harkin just wrote an article to that effect for the Kerry Campaign in a university on MN student newspaper. Michael Moore was seated in the Presidential Suite next to Jimmy Carter at the Democratic convention. In the Osama Bin Laden video, Bin laden himself speaks of several of the conspiracies that Moore promotes in his two hour lie, F9/11.

No, if you cast a vote for John Kerry, you are casting a vote for this type of mentality to run the country. Walter Cronkite has said what many in the Party no doubt believe, that the dark forces currently running the country are in cahoots with Bin laden. For what reason? Oil no doubt.

The insanity that has overtaken the Democratic party should be a concern of every citizen. It is not healthy, it is not good for the country, and it is not good for the Democratic process of this country. This election has brought out the worst insticts in millions of people. They are now unable to see the evil that we face in the war on terror because thewy are blinded by conspiracies and the belief that the only real ebil in the world is the United States. How would an administration infected with that mentality ever be able to face up to and defeat the threats that are looming only a short distance away. They will not be able to see the real threat posed by a nuclear armed Iraq, or a North Korea ready, willing and able to sell its nuclear weapons to terrorist groups. A Party so blinded with hate will blame America first, even if we are attacked again and again and again. In its current state, the Democratic Party ios a dangerous organization. It cannot be allowed to run the country in this time of war. A voter for John kerry is a vote to withdraw from the war on terror, a vote for John Kerry is a vote to invite another attack on our shores.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

October Surprise?

It is widely known (although not as widely known as it should be) that John Kerry consorted with the enemy after his return from Vietnam, while leader of the group Vietnam Veterans Against the War. There now seems to be conclusive proof that John Kerry was actually taking orders from the North Vietnamese Communists while still an officer in the Navy, a crime that actually precludes him from running for office of any sort, according to the Constitution. Why has the media not covered this? First and foremost because most of the members of the mainstream media sympathize with John Kerry's actions during the early 1970's. Second, they want Kerry to win the election. If they reveal to the public the fact that John Kerry met with, took orders from and pushed the cause of the enemy of the United States while we were still at war, he would lose 49 states. Massachusetts would vote for an ape if it had a (D) behind its name.

Documents, recently uncovered at the Vietnam Center at Texas Tech and verified for authenticity before their release, provide hard evidence that Kerry and ithers recieved guidance and clearance for their anti-war activities. The article is important because John Kerry has never apologized for his actions and statements after teh Vietnam War and he has refused to sign Form 180, as the President did, that would release all of his military records to the public. it is suspected that he refuses to release his records because he reieved a "less than honorabole" discharge from the Navy becasue of his anti-war, anti-American activities.

Read the entire article, send it to your friends. The main stream media will not report these findings, but the American public needs to know about them.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

The Osama Bin Laden Video

Reading the trascript of the Osama Bin Laden video several things demand attention. The first is of course the similarity between the statements Bin Laden makes in the video and most of the Kerry Campaign's talking points. For example, bin Laden states:

I am so surprised by you. Although we are in the fourth year after the events of sept 11, Bush is still practicing distortion and misleading on you, and obscuring the main reasons and therefore the reasons are still existing to repeat what happened before. I will tell you the reasons behind theses incidents.

Hmm. The "Bush Lied" meme. This has been the foundation of the Democratic Party's existance the past two years. It is what sustains them. Bin Laden is using it to try to turn the American people against the President, just as John Kerry does on a daily basis.

Bin Laden continues:

We didn't find difficulty dealing with Bush and his administration due to the similarity of his regime and the regims in our countries. Whish half of them are ruled by military and the other half by sons of kings and presidents and our experience with them is long. Both parties are arrogant and stubborn and the greediness and taking money without right and that similarity appeared during the visits of Bush to the region while people from our side were impressed by the US and hoped that these visits would influence our countries. Here he is being influenced by these regimes, Royal and military. And was feeling jealous they were staying for decades in power stealing the nations finances without anybody overseeing them. So he transferred the oppression of freedom and tyranny to his son and they call it th e Patriot Law to fight terrorism. He was bright in putting his sons as governors in states and he didn't forget to transfer his experience from the rulers of our region to Florida to falsify elections to benefit from it in critical times.

Bush Adminstration = regime. This has been said by everyone from the most radical leftists to elected members of Congress. Patriot Act = oppression of freedom and tyranny. A Kerry Campaign theme. He was for the Patriot Act, but now he wants to dilute it. It seems that Osama Bin Laden does as well. And finally from this paragraph the grandaddy of all Democratic fever swamp conspiracies, the one that permeates the entire Democratic Party from top to bottom - Bush stole Florida, by way of his brother who was "installed" as Governor. I am shocked that he did not mention hanging chads or Katherine Harris or disenfranchisement of African Americans. It seems like he really missed an opportunity by not throwing that in.

More from Bin Laden:

We agreed with Mohamed Atta, god bless him, to execute the whole operation in 20 minutes. Before Bush and his administration would pay attention and we never thought that the high commander of the US armies would leave 50 thousand of his citizens in both towers to face the horrors by themselves when they most needed him because it seemed to distract his attention from listening to the girl telling him about her goat butting was more important than paying attention to airplanes butting the towers which gave us three times the time to execute the operation thank god.

This is incredible. He had taken full responsibility for September 11th earlier in the tape, and does so again with his discussion about the planning with Mohammed Atta (sorry to all you nutburgers out there who believe that President Bush planned and executed September 11th himself, and to those of you who believe that Israeli intelligence was responsible). He then proceeds to basically quote from Michael Moore's F9/11 script. He actually refers to the book, "My Pet Goat" and the seven minutes Bush was in the classroom before he excused himself. Funny, John Kerry and Michael Moore have both focused on that book and those seven minutes as well. Did Terry McAuliffe fax the DNC's talking points to OBL?

The transcript of the video available on Drudge ends here, however ther is the transcript of a female presenter who describes Bin Laden talking about a war for oil etc... He also speaks of th economic damage that 9/11 brought to this country. That is where he and Kerry part company. Kerry has never acknowledged the effect of September 11th on the American economy, in fact he has barely acknowledged the date at all. Powerline points out another area where Kerry and Bin Laden part ways. Bin Laden acknowledges the fact that we are at war. Kerry has not done that, and could not muster the will to do it in his response to the Bin Laden video, as pointed out by a Powerline reader. This was Kerry's statement on the Bin laden video in part:

"...we are all united in hunting down and capturing or killing those who conducted that raid and we always knew that that was Osama bin Laden."

Yep, a raid. Bin Laden speaks of war. Kerry speaks of a "nuicance", a "law enforcement issue" and a "raid".

The Belmont Club has a very interesting take on the video, which I have to say does come across on Bin Ladens words. The Belmont Club believes that the tape is a thinly veiled surrender.

If you are a Kerry supporter you must ask yourself why OBL's talking points sound so similar to John Kerry's.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Friday, October 29, 2004

CBS News: A Laughing Stock

Honestly. If anyone still believes that CBS News is anything other than a ridiculous, embarrassing shell of a news agency, they probably only watch CBS News. This story and it's headline, "
A Rough Week For President Bush" is one of the most ridiculous stories of the election cycle, and it is a story, not an article. CBS attempts to spin the events of the past week as damaging to President Bush. From the 386 tons of missing munitions to the Osama Bin Laden tape, the network that brought us the fraudulent National Guard documents now expects us to believe that John Kerry's denigration of the 3rd ID and the 101zt Airborne over a story that was proven to be unreliable immediately and completely untrue after one day somehow hurts the president. they also try to spin the Osama Bin Laden video released today as negative for the president.

Only in the fantasy land inhabited by "reporters" of CBS News can either of these stories be a negative for the President. Considering that CBS News only reports now to people who are prone to believe everything they say, it is not surprising that they would be confident that anytone still listening to them would believe their story.

CBS has become like the National Enquirer, serving only those willing to believe the most fantastic lies, or searching for cheap entertainment.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Osama Campaigns For Kerry

AL-Jazeera, the mouthpiece al Al-Queda, has broadcast a video taped message, supposedly from Osama Bin Laden, in which Bin Laden basically campaigns for Kerry. Excerpts:

“we decided to destroy towers in America” because “we are a free people” who wanted to “regain the freedom” of their nation. He accuses President Bush of “misleading” the American people for the three years since the Sept. 11 attacks. Most of bin Laden’s message is in regard to Bush, who faces Democrat John Kerry in next week’s presidential election.
He ridicules Bush for reacting slowly to the Sept. 11 attacks, saying: “I never thought that the supreme leader would leave 50,000 of his people in the two towers to face the terrifying events alone at the time they were in need for him.”

It is laughable how thinly he veiled his endorsement of Kerry. He spent the entire tape trying to denigrate the preisdent’s performance after September 11th. To what end? It is obvious. He hopes to cower the American people into voting for Kerry. We will not be cowed.

He also added, just in case they were going to vote for the President:

“Bush cannot protect you.”

It is obvious that the terrorists have taken a beating under President Bush, and it is obvious that they would prefer John Kerry.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Krauthammer: Kerry, the Retroactive Genius

Charles Krauthammer is one of the best writers in journalism today. His column in today's Washington Post may be the best summary of teh difference between President Bush and John Kerry written to date. An excerpt, no it is to good, the entire article:

In the 1990s, Afghanistan was allowed to fall to the Taliban and become the global center for the training, indoctrination and seeding of jihadists around the world -- including the mass murderers of Sept. 11, 2001. This week, just three years after a two-month war that destroyed the Taliban, Afghanistan completed its first free election, choosing as president a pro-American democrat enjoying legitimacy and wide popular support.

This represents the single most astonishing geopolitical transformation of the past four years. (Deposing Saddam Hussein ranks second. The global jihad against America was no transformation at all: It existed long before the Bush administration. We'd simply ignored al Qaeda's declaration of war.) But perhaps even more astonishing is how this singular American victory has disappeared from public consciousness.

Americans have a deserved reputation for historical amnesia. Three years -- an eon -- have made us imagine that the Afghan war was easy and foreordained.

Easy? In 2001, we had nothing there. What had the Clinton administration left in place? No plausible military plan. Virtually no intelligence. No local infrastructure. No neighboring bases. The Afghan Northern Alliance was fractured and weak. And Pakistan was actively supporting the bad guys.

Within days of Sept. 11, the clueless airhead president that inhabits Michael Moore's films and Tina Brown's dinner parties had done this: forced Pakistan into alliance with us, isolated the Taliban, secured military cooperation from Afghanistan's northern neighbors, and authorized a radical war plan involving just a handful of Americans on the ground, using high technology and local militias to utterly rout the Taliban.

President Bush put in place a military campaign that did in two months what everyone had said was impossible: defeat an entrenched, fanatical, ruthless regime in a territory that had forced the great British and Soviet empires into ignominious retreat. Bush followed that by creating in less than three years a fledgling pro-American democracy in a land that had no history of democratic culture and was just emerging from 25 years of civil war.

This is all barely remembered and barely noted. Most amazing of all, John Kerry has managed to transform our Afghan venture into a failure -- a botched operation in which Bush let Osama bin Laden get away because he "outsourced" bin Laden's capture to "warlords" in the battle of Tora Bora.

Outsourced? The entire Afghan war was outsourced. How does Kerry think we won it? How did Mazar-e Sharif, Kabul and Kandahar fall? Stormed by thousands of American GIs? They fell to the "warlords" we had enlisted, supported and directed. It was their militias that overran the Taliban.

"Outsourcing" is a demagogue's way of saying "using allies." (Isn't Kerry's Iraq solution to "outsource" the problem to the "allies" and the United Nations?) And in Afghanistan it meant the very best allies: locals who had a far better chance of knowing which cave to storm without getting blown up. As Kerry himself said on national television at the time of Tora Bora (Dec. 14, 2001): "What we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will" -- i.e., not throwing American lives away in tunnels and caves in alien territory. "I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way."

Now, as always, the retroactive military genius says he would have done it differently. Yet in the same interview, when asked about how things were going overall in Afghanistan, he said, "I think we have been smart; I think the administration leadership has done it well and we are on the right track."

Once again, the senator's position has evolved, to borrow the New York Times' delicate term for Kerry's many about-faces.

This election comes down to a choice between one man's evolution and the other man's resolution. With his endlessly repeated Tora Bora charges, Kerry has made Afghanistan a major campaign issue. So be it. Whom do you want as president? The man who conceived the Afghan campaign, carried it through without flinching when it was being called a "quagmire" during its second week and has seen it through to Afghanistan's transition to democracy? Or the retroactive genius, who always knows what needs to be done after it has already happened -- who would have done "everything" differently in Iraq, yet in Afghanistan would have replicated Bush's every correct, courageous, radical and risky decision -- except one. Which, of course, he would have done differently. He says. Now.

John Kerry is a poser. The man most Democrats and people on the left regard as "chimp-brained" has led one of the most astonishingly successful campaign is the history of warfare. But he has not just conquered militarily. In the wake of the overthrow of two of the most brutal regimes on earth he has left one democracy and the foundation of a second, with elections only three months away. It is remarkable, a turning point in human history, when the lamp of liberty first lit the dark recesses of the Middle East. But John Kerry views it all as a failure because Kofi Annan did not agree to it.

If George Bush is defeated the most tragic aspect will be the rewriting of history by the left. They try to rewrite history on a daily basis, imagine what they will do if they manage to return to power. Iraq will have been an unnecessary disaster. Afghanistan a mere forgotten blip in human history, and it will be allowed to return to the oppresive pit it was in the 1990's. It is too sad to think about.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Thomas Sowell: The Media's Missing Integrity

Thomas Sowell - short, sweet, to the point and as always, brilliant.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Tom Harkin: Disgusting Demagogue for Kerry

Powerline has a post that links to a column written be Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. The column is written in a student newspaper at the University on Minnesota. The name of the article? Why Bush Will Restart the Draft if Elected

Of all of the low brow demagoguery teh Democrats have engaged in this election, the threatening of a potential draft under President Bush is the most despicable. To say it is a lie understates the venal nature of what the Democrats are doing. There was one draft bill submitted to Congress, it was drafted and submitted by two Democrats. The draft runor started as an internet rumor, then the Kerry Campaign, believing they couldscore points with it, picked it up and have repeated it time and time again. An excerpt from Harkins disgraceful article:

President George W. Bush may or may not have a secret plan to reinstate the draft. But this is besides the point. The deteriorating facts on the ground in Iraq, plus the Bush doctrine of acting pre-emptively and unilaterally against hostile regimes, will soon leave him no choice. If Bush is re-elected, he will have to restart the draft.

Indeed, Bush has already imposed stage one of a new draft. Many soldiers whose enlistment period is up are not being allowed to leave the service, and those who left the service years ago are being forced to put on the uniform again against their wills. It is clear that we already have a back-door draft. Bush has effectively ended the all-volunteer military.

And stage two of a reinstated draft would be easy to implement. Draft boards are already in place in every county in the United States, and young men who turn 18 are already required to register with their local draft board. A major terrorist attack could easily serve as the pretext for flipping the switch and setting this apparatus in motion.

It is obvious that our armed forces are stretched dangerously thin. We do not have enough people in uniform to meet current needs in Iraq and Afghanistan, much less to deal with a confrontation with Iran or North Korea.

Fearmongering, scare tactics, demagoguery, distortions, not to mention the discrediting of what our troops have accomplished on the ground in Iraq. These people cannot be allowed to run the country. They are a menace to Democracy and the spread of liberty around the globe. They do not understand the war we are fighting, they do not have a plan to win and they are the worst sort of demagogues, using scare tactics to try top persuade young people to vote for them.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Cape Cod Times Endorses Bush

The Cape Cod Times, the only newspaper in the ancestral Massachusetts home of the Kennedy's, has endorsed George W. Bush for re-election:

Sen. John McCain, the well-respected Republican from Arizona, recently described what's at stake for every American in the first presidential election since Sept. 11, 2001:

"So it is, whether we wished it or not, that we have come to the test of our generation, to our rendezvous with destiny. ...

"All of us, despite the differences that enliven our politics, are united in the one big idea that freedom is our birthright and its defense is always our first responsibility. All other responsibilities come second."

If we waver now, McCain said, "we will fail the one mission no American generation has ever failed - to provide to our children a stronger, better country than the one we were blessed to inherit."

For McCain and for millions of other Americans, the global war against terrorism is the defining issue of this election.

In this context, we believe President George W. Bush will best lead a bolder, more proactive, more focused struggle against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan and rogue governments and groups that shelter, finance or otherwise support terrorists.

In contrast, Sen. John Kerry has said any attack against America will be met with "a swift response," but that pre-emptive strikes must meet "a global test."

In other words, Kerry would play defense, much like previous administrations did after the attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993, the USS Cole, and U.S. embassies abroad.

We can no longer live in a pre-Sept. 11 world. We must remain on the offensive. "The United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past," President Bush said. "We cannot let our enemies strike first."

Prior to 9/11, we would have supported the more Kerry-esque posture - address the root causes of terrorism. But Sept. 11 taught us that no matter how much America tries to address cultural inequities and global injustice - and not to diminish the importance of those worthy tasks - the kind of evil that would kill nearly 3,000 innocent citizens continues to threaten the United States today.

And no amount of money, no amount of diplomacy, no amount of American goodwill will prevent those who would attack America again.

It is hard to believe that Americans would actually vote out the man who took the fight to the enemy in favor of a man who will "respond to any attack" after what happened on September 11th. But it is possible because it seems that many Americans do not actually believe that we are engaged in a global war. To them their selfish interests, whether it be the abortion issue or some other social issue still takes precedence. They do not seem to understand that if we lose this war their will be no abortion issue to debate. There will be no debates at all the way we know them now. If we lose this war our very way of life will come to an end. What will it take to convince them? How deadly will the next attack have to be to wake them up? A nuclear holocaust in a city? A biological agent that kills 10 or 20 thousand? Will they then understand the scope of the evil we are fighting? The editors of the Cape Cod Press understand the fight. Let's hope others do as well.

(via LittleGreenFootballs)

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Joe Biden Asked To Be Kerry's Sec. of State

That's right, America. If you elect John Kerry to be President of the United States, slow Joe Biden, who's own Presidential hopes were shattered when it was revealed that he had plagiarised his stump speeches, will be the Sec. of State. No more Colin Powell, no more Condi Rice, no more Rumsfeld, or Cheney, the brilliant men and women who have so far conducted a successful war on terror and have kept the country safe from further attack. No, under a Kerry administration you will get warmed over members of the former Clinton administration and half wit senators who could not even write their own stump speeches. You will get back the same people who for eight years treated terrorism as a "law enforcement" issue as we were attacked time after time after time. The people who were in charge while Al-Queda grew to the force it was on September 11th. The same people who clinked champagne glasses with Kim Jong Il in North Korea while he was arming himself with nuclear weapons. Jimmy Carter will once again be major player (remember he helped broker the 1994 deal with North Korea) in an administration. But beyond getting the actual people from the Clinton administration, you will get back the attitude that the United States is best suited to be just another member of the UN, not the leader of the free world. That our interests must be set aside at times for the interests of the United Nations or some of the countries that make up the United Nations like France, Syria, China, Russia.

So that is your choice. The men and women who have four years prosecuted one of the most complicated, yet successful wars in history or the people who felt it was a law enforcement issue and failed to respond to repeated attacks. Chooose wisely, the future of the country depends on your choice.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Thursday, October 28, 2004

Bush Campaign Has Smoking Gun Evidence Of Voter Fraud

The Democrats are cheating, the Republicans have smoking gun evidence. Powerline has the story.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Kerry Campaign Continues With Al-QaQaa Story

Despite the fact that the field commander of the first troops to arrive at the Al-Qaqaa facility has stated that the conditions on the ground would not have allowed for the theft of 377 tons of munitions form the Al-Qaqaa facility, the Kerry Campaign has latched on to a video supposedly shot at the facility. ABC produced an unidentified expert that says he believes the barrels shown in the video contained the explosives in question. The most amazing thing about the report, filed by Martha Raddatz is the concluding paragraph:

It remains unclear how much HMX was at the facility, but what does seem clear is that the U.S. military opened the bunkers at Al-Qaqaa and left them unguarded. Since then, the material has disappeared.

Media bias? No. No way, never.

Why are we still talking about this? So far we have established that there may or may not have been explosives at Al-Qaqaa at the time of the invasion. There may have been anywhere from 3 to 380 tons. The bunkers may or may not have been sealed, and the seals may or not have been effective if they were there. If there were 380 tons it would have taken 80 large trucks traveling through roads choked with US military and monitored by aerial drones. If it were three tons, which could be put in one truck, that truck would have to have arrived, loaded and departed through US troops without being noticed. Let's for fun assume that the military left three tons (380 tons is a ridiculous assertion) of explosives unguarded and that that the non-existant (at that time) insurgency managed to get in and get out without being noticed by the US military or aerial drones, and they managed to get away with the material. Three tons out of approximately 800,000 tons of material is number so small as to be insignificant.

Bu this is what John Kerry and the main stream media have chosen as the issue for the last week of the campaign. It is pathetic, but such is the state of the main stream media and the modern Democratic Party.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Arafat Watch: A Terrorist In Paris...

Of course the world's oldest terrorist is welcome in Paris. Yassar is on his way for medical treatment, via Jordan.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Schilling For Bush

Yes, I have a new favorite player.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

The UN/NY Times/John Kerry Fallout Begins

One sure thing that will come out of this election is the securing of John Kerry's bona fides as a critic of the US Military. His shameless attempt to exploit a lie about our military generated at the United Nations and trumpeted by the New York Times is just the latest time in which this man who wants to be Cammander In Chief has seen fit to question the competence of men and women still fighting in a war zone. We now know conclusively that the explosives were removed from Al-Qaqaa before the war started. The shameless part is that Mr. Kerry saw fit to question the competence of the soldiers before he knew all of the facts. He will do or say anything to be elected.

Ralph Peters has a article in today's New York Post that was obviously written before the revelation that the Russians helped the Iraqis move the explosives became public. Even without that information the assertion that teh 3rd Infantry Division or the 101st Airborne allowed a huge convoy of trucks to pillage the munitions dump and leave unseen was absurd. Peter's gives 12 reasons the story was ridiculous on it's face.

Dick Morris has also seen fit to comment on the Kerry decision o to embrace the unsubstantiated hit piece. He comes at it from a political angle, declaring it to be the Kerry Campaign "Final Fumble". It is important to note that Morris believes the story is the final nail in Kerry's coffin, and he to wrote his column before the Russian connection was revealed.

Hugh Hewitt posted a short piece on the story last night. Hugh declared it a disaster for Kerry as soon as Kerry made the NY Times story an issue. It became more disasteropus for Kerry when he filmed a commercial about it, looking straight into the camera, declaring the military incompetant. Wait!, you say. Kerry aimed his criticisms at the President not the military! Wrong. The 3rd ID and the 101st Airborne were given the task of securing the munitions, they did not find them. Kerry's condemnation is a condemnation of those who were supposed to find the explosives but did not. The troops were on the ground.

Powerline has a post this morning on the New York Times contnuation of the lie they started a week ago. It really is incredible that they would continue to push the story as if none of the facts that have come to light since Monday exist. They live in a parallel universe where the only "facts" that exist are the ones they write in their paper. Powerline notes that the story has blown up in thier face like an exploding cigar. True. But they have become so blinded and nerve damaged from the previous explosions that they haven't even noticed.

CBS, the network that was willing to destroy its credability to take down the President with fraudulent documents, may have caught a break with the NY Times running with the story first. They had planned to break the story next Sunday, two days before the election, now they will not. The question is, what lie will they replace the story with?

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Russian Special Forces Removed Al-Qaqaa Munitions

Drudge is running an "alert" to a story by Bill Gertz of the Washington Times that asserts that Russian Special Forces removed the explosives material from the Al-Qaqaa munitions depot before US Troops arrived.

According to John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, Russian troops working with Iraqi Intelligence, moved the material from Al-Qaqaa to Syria in the lead up to the war.

The obvious question is why Russian troops would help Iraqi intelligence move this material before the war? And if they did, why would they move the material to Syria? Military leaders and intelligence officers have stated on multiple occasions that they believe, based on sattelite imagery, that Saddam Hussein moved truckloads of material to Syria, where it was buried, before the war. Could this be what they saw?

The US government knew that the material was no longer in the bunker when US troops arrived in the spring of 2003. It is obvious that they were aware that Russia had aided in the removal of the material. They had chosen not to make this public, probably due to the sensitive nature of the information and the tenuous relationship of America and Russia in the War on Terror. The New York Times and CBS News were alerted to the missing weapons by the United Nations. They chose to take the information public, without knowing all of the facts or the consequences of publishing the story, in an attempt to damage the President. John Kerry immediately jumped on the story attacking the President and the troops serving in Iraq in a desperate attempt to garner votes. It now seems possible that the publication of the story could be detrimental to the war. Russia will no doubt deny the accusations, and the ramifications of such information becoming public could be the loss of some amount of cooperation in the war.

So far this story has proven a few things. The UN is a corrupt and morally bankrupt institution whose only goal is to see that the bureacrats within the institution can continue to hold on to their jobs. The story also proves that the argument or assertion that other countries in the world may be persuded to join the coalition in Iraq is nonsense. We now know that of the five permament members of the Security Council, only the United states and Britain were not engaged in some sort of corruption with the former Iraqi regime. The rest had vested interests in seeing that Saddam Hussein remained in power. The third thing this proves is that the President's statement today, that John Kerry is willing to say anything, no matter how innapropriate or damaging, to get elected. With his comments on this issue John Kerry has proven himself to be unfit to be Commander in Chief.

This is a developing story.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Yassar Arafat On Deathbed

The world's oldest terrorist is going to have the opportunity to explain to his maker the deaths of thousands of innocents who were killed at his command. Yassar Arafat appears to be very close to death.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

How Long Before The Democrats Kill Someone?

The party of hate is turning into the party of violence:

OCTOBER 27--A Florida man has been charged with attempting to run over controversial Republican congresswoman Katherine Harris with his Cadillac. According to the below Sarasota Police Department report, Barry Seltzer, 46, told cops that he was simply exercising his "political expression" when he drove his car at Harris and several supporters, who were campaigning last night at a Sarasota intersection. Seltzer--pictured at right in a booking photo--allegedly drove up on a sidewalk and headed directly for Harris before swerving "at the last minute." Harris told officers that "she was afraid for her life and could not move as the vehicle approached her," according to the report. For his part, Seltzer--who's a registered Democrat--told cops, "I intimidated them with the car. They were standing in the street." He added, "I did not run them down, I scared them a little!" That explanation did not stop investigators from arresting Seltzer for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a felony. Harris, Florida's former secretary of state, is best known for her role in the aftermath of the state's disastrous 2000 presidential election.

That is the Democratic Party’s idea of freedom of expression. The Democrat’s have turned to violence in this election. The violence is escalating, and it is very likely that someone will be killed by the violence before the election.

(Via Drudge)

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Democrats Already Filing Lawsuits In Florida

The Washington Times has reported that the Democrats have already filed 9 lawsuits in Florida, claiming election officials are conspiring to disenfranchise minority voters:

Led by the Florida Democratic Party, the People for the American Way, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the AFL-CIO, the lawsuits target, among others, Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood, who was appointed by Republican Gov. Jeb Bush, President Bush's brother.

The suits say Republican officials refused to count provisional ballots, improperly disqualified incomplete voter registrations, established overly restrictive rules to disproportionately hurt minority voters and actively sought to disenfranchise blacks.

Matt Miller, a spokesman for the Kerry campaign, said Republicans are "trying to scare people away from the polls."

But Mrs. Hood's spokesman, Alia Faraj, described the lawsuits as politically motivated, saying they were eroding public confidence in the election process by challenging "every single law we are following."

One suit challenges a ruling by Mrs. Hood to throw out forms on which new voters had failed to check a box indicating whether they were U.S. citizens, and another argued that although only 17 percent of the voters in Broward County and 20 percent in Miami-Dade County were black, more than a third of the voter-registration forms that were determined to be incomplete and invalid in both counties involved black voters.

The Democrats are a menace to the Democratic process. They are challenging every law on the books in an attempt to steal the election. They have set up a system by which they can challenge thousands of provisional ballots, ballots cast by people who are not on voters rolls, but who are allowed to vote anyway. AL Gore opened this pandora’s box last election, and this is what it has wrought. Will there ever now be an election that does not involve thousands of lawyers? Will there eve be an election decided on election day? The Democrats have proven they are willing to undermine the Democratic process of the world’s oldest Democracy in order to retake power. The lawsuits do right along with the Kerry plan to declare victory on election night no matter the outcome of the vote and then to fight the election in the courts. The Democrats are committing a massive amount of voter fraud across the country and using sympathetic judges to make rulings in their favor. The American people should reject these tactics out of hand. They should hand the Democrats a devastating loss, so large that they are unable to take it to court. Maybe then the tide of lawsuits and lawyers will be turned away and the threat posed to our democracy will recede.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Insurgent Leader: Terrorists Looking to Defeat Bush Through Violence in Iraq

It is what everyone knows to be true, but few people have had the gumption to say it. The violence in Iraq has but one goal, to persuade the American people to vote out President Bush and replace him with a weak knee'd liberal candidate. As of this morning , the terrorists have made their strategy public. It seems that they have learned lessons from Vietnam and Somalia, where Americans were defeated not on teh battlegield, but on the American Street and in the White House. The Washington Times is reporting that leaders of the Iraqi terrorist "insurgency" have stated that it is their goal to see to the defeat of President Bush on Nov. 2:

BAGHDAD — Leaders and supporters of the anti-U.S. insurgency say their attacks in recent weeks have a clear objective: The greater the violence, the greater the chances that President Bush will be defeated on Tuesday and the Americans will go home.

"If the U.S. Army suffered numerous humiliating losses, [Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John] Kerry would emerge as the superman of the American people," said Mohammad Amin Bashar, a leader of the Muslim Scholars Association, a hard-line clerical group that vocally supports the resistance.

Resistance leader Abu Jalal boasted that the mounting violence had already hurt Mr. Bush's chances.

"American elections and Iraq are linked tightly together," he told a Fallujah-based Iraqi reporter. "We've got to work to change the election, and we've done so. With our strikes, we've dragged Bush into the mud."

There it is in black and white. The terrorists want the President to lose and to be replaced by John Kerry. If George Bush is defeated on Nov. 2nd it will be the terrorists greatest victory thus far in the war on terror. It will be a greater victory than was September 11th, a greater victory than any individual act of terror. It will be a greater victory than their defeat of the pro-American government in Spain. They know they cannot defeat the United states on the battlefield, but we have proven to them that we can be defeated by public opinion. The irony that the man that led the movement to wothdraw from Vietnam is the candidatye is the same man running against the President is not lost on the terrorists. Although many Americans may have been bluffed by Kerry's whitewashing of his past, one can be sure that the terrorists know Kerry's record like the back of their hand. They also seem to be some of the few people who have been able to look through his many flip-flops on the war to realize that he will indeed cut and run.

The fact is if you vote for John Kerry you are voting to give the terrorists a victory. The terrorists know this. They know the weakness of half of the American people and they are trying to exploit it. It may not be polite to say, but we do not have time for politeness, if you vote for ohn Kerry and his philosophy you are voting to hane the terrorists their biggest victory yet. My theory is that Americans do understand this, and that many will, when alone in the booth, pull the lever for the President, even if they never tell anyone they did. Americans are smart and they are defiant, they will not hand the terrorists a victory.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

CBS Reported Search For Weapons at Al-Qaqaa in April

From Captain Ed at Captain's Quarter's. CBS reported in A that the Third Infantry Division had indeed searched the Al-Qaqaa site, and had found the suspicious white powder that would have constituted the type of material the New York Times now claims the Bush Administration let walk away. From the CBS News archive:

U.S. troops found thousands of boxes of white powder, nerve agent antidote and Arabic documents on how to engage in chemical warfare at an industrial site south of Baghdad. But a senior U.S. official familiar with initial testing said the materials were believed to be explosives.

Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, said the materials were found Friday at the Latifiyah industrial complex just south of Baghdad. ... The facility is part of a larger complex known as the Latifiyah Explosives and Ammunition Plant al Qa Qaa.

The CBS story continues:

The senior U.S. official, based in Washington and speaking on condition of anonymity, said the material was under further study. The site is enormous and U.S. troops are still investigating it for potential weapons of mass destruction, the official said.

"Initial reports are that the material is probably just explosives, but we're still going through the place," the official said. ...

The facility had been identified by the International Atomic Energy Agency as a suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons site. U.N. inspectors visited the plant at least nine times, including as recently as Feb. 18.

It appears that CBS News failed to search its own archives before it launched an attack against the troops and against the President. A guest blogger at Instapundit has pointed to this entry from the Belmint Club which makes an excellect point:

The contemporaneous CBS report, written before anyone knew al Qa Qaa would be a big deal, establishes two important things. The first is that 3ID knew it was looking through an IAEA inspection site. The second was that the site had shown unmistakable signs of tampering before the arrival of US troops. "Peabody said troops found thousands of boxes, each of which contained three vials of white powder, together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in chemical warfare." Now presumably those thousands of boxes were not all packaged and labeled with chemical warfare instructions under IAEA supervision, so the inescapable conclusion is that a fairly large and organized type of activity had been under way in Al Qa Qaa for some time.

A Powerline reader sent the guys there an image of a story from an April 5, 2003 story by Judith Miller and Douglas Jehl that included the following paragraphs:

Senior American officials have barely mentioned the hunt for Mr. Hussein's unconventional weapons in recent days. At an industrial site south of Baghdad today, United States troops found what were reported to be thousands of boxes of white powder, believed to be a nerve agent antidote. But preliminary tests showed it to be an explosive.

Troops also discovered documents in Arabic that officers said might relate to Iraq's chemical warfare program. But military officials here said that special American teams with headquarters in the region had not been sent to the site.

This suggests that the substances and documents, found at the Latifiya Explosives and Ammunition Plant Al Qaa Qaa, about 25 miles south of the capital, might be related to Iraq's efforts to defend itself against chemical weapons, rather than to an offensive chemical warfare program.

Three things are now abundantly clear:

1) CBS and The New York Times set about to launch an October surprise to influence the election. It is possible that they used a letter given to them by Mohammed El Baradei for the story.

2) CBS and The New York Times were so determined to get what they saw as a story damaging to the President in the paper and to the public that they failed to do even a cursory check of their own archives. It took simply searching the CBS site to come up with their own story from April 2003.

3) The Kerry Campaign is willing to grasp at headlines, no matter how untrue, in the last week of this campaign. Kerry/Edwards is willing to trust the New York Times over the 3rd Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne.

The fact is there is no there there. The only story from this is that the New York Times and CBS are willing to work in concert with the Kerry Campaign on a fraudulent story in order to try to damage the President in the last week of the campaign. At this point in the campaign, this tyoe of story would probabnly have little effect on how anyone votes anyway. If a person is willing to change their mind and vote for Kerry over the President because of a confusing, unclear story about a small cache of weapons in a country that held a million tons of weapons then so be it. The story will only live on in Kerry spoeeches and in the pages of the New York Times, the average American has already moved on.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Military Men Weigh In On "Missing Weapons"

KerrySpot has recieved many emails from men who were on the ground at the munitions dump in question. Read it here. They ate the men who had the jopb of securing the weapons in question. They arrived at the site, found no weapons, adjusted the battle plan and left. Kerry's latest rhetoric is actually a smear on the soldiers who were on the ground and who had the orders to secure the weapons in question. The were given the orders, they went to secure the weapons, found none of the marked weapons, and went on to take Baghdad.

John Kerry has decided to trust the New York Times and Mohammed El Baradei over the troops of the 101st Airborne.

This is pathetic and ridiculous. Read the statements by the military men, compare them to the statemnets by Kerry.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Israel Approves Gaza Pullout Plan

The Israeli Knesset has approved a historic pull out plan to withdraw from all of the Gaza Strip and most of the West bank. This is a huge step toward the goal of a two state solution. It is a brave decision by the Israeli’s, one that could prove to be catastrophic if President Bush does not win re-election.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Kerry/Edwards to Broadcast New York TImes Lie As Ad

Many bloggers and political pundits often write about statements or actions of the Kerry Campaign that indicate panic or desperation. To this point I have tried to steer away from making such claims because it is very difficult to guess what drives the actions of a particular campaign at any given point in an election. However, if the story Drudge has posted is true, the Kerry Campaign is either desperate, despicable or (probably) both.

According to Drudge the Kerry/Edwards Campaign is in the process of producing a TV commercial based of the discredited New York Times article released yesterday regarding some 380 tons of munitions that went missing in Iraq. The New York Times story was discredited last night when NBC News ran a segment stating that its reporters were with the military the day after the liberation of Iraq and the weapons were ALREADY gone. They were not stolen due to some failure on the part of the President as the New York Times and the Kerry/Edwards Campaign alleges. The weapons were gone before we ever got there.

But the facts do not matter to a media that is attempting to influence an election or a Democratic ticket willing to say anything, no matter how untrue, to win.

Clifford May has reported that he has been told that the New York Times story was based on a fraudulent letter leaked to them by Mohammed El Baradei, head of the IAEA:

“The Iraqi explosives story is a fraud. These weapons were not there when US troops went to this site in 2003. The IAEA and its head, the anti-American Mohammed El Baradei, leaked a false letter on this issue to the media to embarrass the Bush administration. The US is trying to deny El Baradei a second term and we have been on his case for missing the Libyan nuclear weapons program and for weakness on the Iranian nuclear weapons program.”

We now have evidence that the IAEA conspired with the New York Times who conspired with the Kerry Campaign to develop an October surprise to damage the President. Drudge has also reported that 60 Minutes was planning to run a huge expose on the missing weapons story, next Sunday, less than 24 hours before the election. That would have followed a media pattern of dropping campaign bombs just before the election. In 1992 it was the Iran-Contra charges brought just before the election, in 2000 it was the DUI charges made public just before the election, and yes, as Drudge is reporting, 2004 was to be the year of the missing munitions.

I have contended for more than a year that the campaign would be fought between the President and the main stream media. John Kerry is w weak candidate who would be lucky to garner 30% of the vote on his own. The main stream media knows he is a weak candidate, so they have launched a full scale attack against the President. Republicans should brace themselves for more potential bombs this week. The media is looking for something. Now that the missing munitions story is falling flat they will find something else. They are also likely to drop a bomb, even if it is untrue, the day before the election. That would allow the headlines to splash across front pages before voting, but not allow enough time for the story to be debunked.

One can only hope that after the DUI story last election the Bush Campaign has prepared itself for the onslaught this week. Maybe they learned enough in 2000 to have an ace up their sleeve. Who knows what that could be, and it is quite frankly unlikely that they are planning a surprise, Republicans generally do not engage in that type of manipulation.

The media ad the international community is already attempting to use Kerry’s theory of a global test to influence the election. They want Bush to lose and they are willing to go to great lengths to see him defeated. We have to hope that the American people are smart enough to see through the lies and distortions. I still believe that it will be a miracle if Bush wins. The forces aligned against him are overwhelming. It is as they say, in God’s hands now.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Kerry Puppet of Hanoi?

If these documents are real and the story is true, John Kerry may find himself in serious trouble.

We will have to wait and see what comes of this story.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Kerry Campaigns With Springsteen/Bon Jovi

Bruce Springsteen and Jon Bon Jovi are now touring and campaigning with John Kerry. President Bush is campaigning with Rudy Guliani and Arnold Schwarzenagger. Does anything else need to be said?

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Kerry's Fanciful UN Meeting

The Washington Times has a follow up to Joel Mowbray's story yesterday that proved that John Kerry's repeated assertion that he had met with the entire UN Security Council was a lie. The op-ed in today's Times more or less recaps Mowbray's story and adds this paragraph:

In all likelihood the reality is that Mr. Kerry chose to trump up the importance of piecemeal meetings with a few delegates as part of his effort to cast the president as disdainful of allies and hasteful as commander in chief. Mr. Kerry had wanted to make himself appear the better on both accounts. It helps, of course, if the acts of diplomatic finesse one ascribes to one's self actually took place. Just as it helps to have a truthful record when trying to cast an opponent as a deceiver. Clearly, Mr. Kerry has some explaining to do.

Yes it helps if what the person says is true, but if you are a Democrat it is not necessary. Nor will it be necessary for John Kerry to explain his lie. No one in the main stream media will hold his feet to the fire. He lied straight faced to the American people in a televised debate on the over riding issue of the campaign, but he will get a pass because as Dennis Prager has often said, "Being Left means never having to say your sorry".

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Closing In On Zarqawi?

Fox News has an AP story that says that an early morning airstrike killed one of his aides. Let's hope he meets his end soon.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

The New York Times: All The Lies Fit To Print

The New York Times has become nothing more than a liberal mouthpiece who's articles must be assumed to be untrue. A post last night on A Time For Choosing questioned the veracity of the report that the New York Times had trumpeted on its front page, that 380 tons of munitions has disappeared from a bunker in Iraq. Before the post could be published NBC News reported that its reporters, who were embedded with US Troops at the beginning of the war, were aware that the troops were at the munitions site at the beginning of the war and the munitions were indeed already gone.

It would be expected that a paper, on finding out that it's front page story was at best misleading and possibly (probably) intentionally so would issue a correction and an apology the next day to ensure that its credibility was not damaged. Instead the New York Times has gone deeper into Jayson Blair land, claiming this morning that their false headline from yesterday has become a campaign issue. The Times never mentions that NBC discredited their story last night. It is as if the breaking story from last night, that the munitions were already gone, never happeened. They simply continue in their falsehood, assuming all who read will believe.

Roger L. Simon believes that in the end this story will hurt the Times more than the Jayson Blair fiasco. Maybe. But the question is who believes that the Times as it is? Yes I am sure that many on the upper West Side of Manhattan read it and believe every word, but other than that small percentage of the population does the average American care what the Time says?

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Monday, October 25, 2004

South Korea On High Alert

The South Korean military has found a hole in the fence that seperates the South from the communist North. The South Korean military has gone on the highest alert until they can determine the source of the hole.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Americans For Peace Through Strength Release Commercial

... and it is a good one. The commercial uses clips from the Reagan/Mondale debates to highlight Kerry's weakness on national defense. View it here.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

238,000 Tons of Munitions Destroyed Iraq

While John Kerry is mimicking the New York Times headline that 380 tons of munitions have gone missing in Iraq, the US military and their allies have destroyed or taken control of approximately 238,000 tons of munitions. Some of which are so old that te equipment used to fire them is no longer made.

It is important to point out that it is not known whether or not the munitions the New York Times points out in this mornings front page Kerry ad, I mean article, were even in the bunker before the invasion began. They were, for all anyone knows, looted before the war began or before it was concluded. The New York Times is simply attempting to invent a story to help the Kerry Campaign. John Kerry gladly jumped on the non-story in his campaign speech today.

There is no telling what the main stream media will attempt to spin into news during the last week of this campaign. They will do all they can to help Kerry. Luckily most of the main stream media has so thoroughly disgraced itself few people will be influenced by their distortions.

Update via KerrySpot:

It seems that this post was on target. NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski has blown a hole in the New York Times Story:

NBC News: Miklaszewski: “April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al Qakaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon. In a letter this month, the Iraqi interim government told the International Atomic Energy Agency the high explosives were lost to theft and looting due to lack of security. Critics claim there were simply not enough U.S. troops to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles, weapons now being used by insurgents and terrorists to wage a guerrilla war in Iraq.” (NBC’s “Nightly News,” 10/25/04)

In other words three weeks into the war, when US troops arrived, the munitions were already gone. If the weapons were there, US troops never had the opportunity to sxecure them. John Kerry is desperately grasping at straws toi find something with which to attack the President. Today he chose a New York Times story that was immediately discredited.


Drudge is now running the the NBC story discrediting the New York Times story as an "alert" complete with flashing siren. If the editors of the New York Times were concerned with running a credible news organization rather than being an outlet for the Kerry Campaign, they would run a front page correction tomoorow. They won't, course.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Mort Zuckerman: The Real Truth About Iraq

After Charles Duelfer issued the Duelfer Report, the Democrats and the main stream media tried to distill it down to one statement, that there were no stockpiles of WMD at the time of the invasion. A few weeks have passed since the report was issued, and people have actually had a chance to read it. What they have found is very, very scary. Mort Zuckerman has written a piece for the upcoming US News and World Report in which he outlines some of the more disturbing bits of information contained within the report:

Saddam wanted to re-create Iraq's banned weapons programs, including nuclear weapons.

Saddam was determined to develop ballistic missiles and tactical chemical weapons when the U.N. sanctions were either lifted or corroded.

Saddam retained the industrial equipment to help restart these programs, having increased from 1996 to 2002 his military industrial spending 40-fold and his technical military research 80-fold. Even while U.N. weapons inspectors were in Iraq, Saddam's scientists were performing deadly experiments on human guinea pigs in secret labs.

To what end? The overlooked section of the Duelfer report could not have put it any clearer: "Iraq would have been able to produce mustard agents in a period of months and nerve agent in less than a year or two." While Saddam had abandoned his biological weapons programs, he retained the scientists and other technicians "needed to restart a potential biological weapons program," and he "intended to reconstitute long-range delivery systems [that is, missiles] and . . . the systems potentially were for WMD." These conclusions were based on interviews with Saddam Hussein, his closest advisers, and his weapons scientists, along with the kind of industrial equipment the Iraqi government imported and maintained.

But, say the critics of the administration, the sanctions had Saddam in a "box", "he was contained!", they screech. Thsat there were no stockpiles is proof that the sanctions were effective, they maintain. Wrong. Zuckerman continues:

But what of the sanctions intended to prevent him from doing these things? The ugly truth is spelled out in Duelfer's report: "Prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem" from France, China, Russia, Egypt, Turkey, Syria, and elsewhere. How odd that many of these same countries were the ones protesting the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Saddam's strategic objective was quite simple--to end the sanctions so he could reconstitute his banned weapons programs. This has been confirmed by Saddam's chief nuclear guru, Mahdi Obeidi, in a book called The Bomb in My Garden. Under orders from Qusay Hussein, Obeidi buried a huge barrel in his back garden that contained the components of an actual centrifuge for the enrichment of uranium, in addition to printed instructions and other information on the subject. Obeidi wrote in the New York Times, "Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jump-start the [nuclear weapons] program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done it so very quickly." Why was none of this learned from the interviews of Obeidi by U.N. inspectors before we invaded? Because his family was held hostage by Saddam.

Yes, America was wrong about Saddam's weapons stockpiles and programs. But the Duelfer report makes it clear that the sanctions were increasingly ineffective and that Saddam would simply bide his time, waiting until the sanctions were either ended or eroded while turning the U.N. Oil-for-Food program into an $11 billion slush fund to buy influence among several key U.N. members, including France, China, and Russia. With the complicity of the U.N. officials allegedly involved in Saddam's Oil-for-Food bribery scheme, can there be any doubt that the sanctions would have eventually disappeared?

The French worked at every turn to frustrate efforts to hold Saddam's feet to the fire. A French legislator even told an Iraqi intelligence official that Paris would veto any U.N. resolution authorizing war against Iraq. In fact, France threatened to do just that. But for what, exactly? Iraq's deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, told Duelfer that "French oil companies wanted to secure two large oil contracts." National bribery on top of individual bribery--now, that's something you don't see every day.

Yes, exactly. The very countries that the critics of the President say we should have listened to were the countries on the take form Saddam Hussein. They were bribed. There is nothing that could have been done or said that would have led these countries to agree to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. His power was worth millions and billions to them. As for his actions, their attitude was "So what?" So what if the money he made was going to the development of WMD, he would never use them on his friends. So what if he brutally oppressed 25 million people through genocide and persecution, if they wanted to be free they would do something about it, and besides Iraq just held an election where Saddam Hussein recieved 100% of the vote. So what if his continued defiance of UN resloutions left that organization an empty, irrelevent shell, if he ever got out of hand something could be done. So what, so what, so what. So what as long as the countries who opposed the invasion and shipped him illegal materials got the bloodmoney they thirsted for. President Bush gave these countries and the UN several last chances to be a relevent organization, they decided to continue to profit from illegal bloodmoney instead of living up to their obligations. The President was correct to invade, it was important that he do so when he did. In other words it is the right war in the right place at the right time.

Zuckerman concludes his article this way:

Duelfer told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "Sanctions were in free fall . . . . If not for 9/11, I don't think they would exist today" and described Saddam as "a grave threat" to the Middle East and to the entire world.

What stopped Saddam was the will of a few strong-minded leaders who believed in a more forceful response than simply joining hands and singing "Kumbaya."

The critics of the President have buried their head in the sands in an attempt to fool the country into believing that the war was wrong. That is dangerous, as we are very likely to face more dangerous less obvious threats than Saddam Hussein in the future. When that happens we have to have leaders that are willing to do more than sing Kumbaya while turning their heads from the threat.

(Via RadioBlogger)

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

John Kerrry Met UN Security Council While Wearing Magic Hat

In the second debate John Kerry looked into the camera and made this statement as proof that he was more attuned to other countries concerns on Iraq than the President:

"This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable,"

Kerry made the same claim almost a year before in a speech in front of the Council on Foreigh relations, saying that he had met, ""with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."

Translation: John Kerry met with the entire security council for a couple of hours. They discussed viable ways that the security council as a group could confront and disarm Saddam Hussein, there was another way other than war, bu the President of the United States would not listen to the Security Council becasue he had already decided to go to war.

Sounds good right? Seems like proof of John Kerry's assertion that the Presidnet did not take to war as a last resort, right? The only problem is Kerry invented the entire story out of wholecloth. That's right, he made it up, or in other words, he lied through his recently lazer whitened teeth.

Joel Mowbray has investigated (and reported in the Washington Times) John Kerry's claim that he met with the "entire Security Council". After speaking directly with many of the members he discovered something very interesting, none of them had ever met John Kerry:

But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either.
The former ambassadors who said on the record they had never met Mr. Kerry included the representatives of Mexico, Colombia and Bulgaria. The ambassador of a fourth country gave a similar account on the condition that his country not be identified.
Ambassador Andres Franco, the permanent deputy representative from Colombia during its Security Council membership from 2001 to 2002, said, "I never heard of anything."
Although Mr. Franco was quick to note that Mr. Kerry could have met some members of the panel, he also said that "everything can be heard in the corridors."
Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, Mexico's then-ambassador to the United Nations, said: "There was no meeting with John Kerry before Resolution 1441, or at least not in my memory."
All had vivid recollections of the time frame when Mr. Kerry traveled to New York, as it was shortly before the Nov. 7, 2002, enactment of Resolution 1441, which said Iraq was in "material breach" of earlier disarmament resolutions and warned Baghdad of "serious consequences as a result of its continued violations."
Stefan Tafrov, Bulgaria's ambassador at the time, said he remembers the period well because it "was a very contentious time."

The Washington Times did discover that Mr. Kerry had had a few informal discussions with a few countries, but that there is no record of him having met for "a couple of hours" with the entire UN Security Council:

Asked whether the international body had any records of Mr. Kerry sitting down with the whole council, a U.N. spokesman said that "our office does not have any record of this meeting."
A U.S. official with intimate knowledge of the Security Council's actions in fall of 2002 said that he was not aware of any meeting Mr. Kerry had with members of the panel.
An official at the U.S. mission to the United Nations remarked: "We were as surprised as anyone when Kerry started talking about a meeting with the Security Council."

In other words, it never happened. John Kerry invented an entire meeting with the UN Security Council to create a weapon to use against the President. And use it he did, in speeches on national television, before the American people in a debate.

Joel Mowbray's conclusion is worthy of being excerpted:

The revelation that Mr. Kerry never met with the entire U.N. Security Council could be problematic for the Massachusetts senator, as it clashes with one of his central foreign-policy campaign themes — honesty.
At a New Mexico rally last month, Mr. Kerry said Mr. Bush will "do anything he can to cover up the truth." At what campaign aides billed as a major foreign-policy address, Mr. Kerry said at New York University last month that "the first and most fundamental mistake was the president's failure to tell the truth to the American people."
In recent months, Mr. Kerry has faced numerous charges of dishonesty from Vietnam veterans over his war record, and his campaign has backtracked before from previous statements about Mr. Kerry's foreign diplomacy.
For example, in March, Mr. Kerry told reporters in Florida that he'd met with foreign leaders who privately endorsed him.
"I've met with foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly," he said. "But, boy, they look at you and say: 'You've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy. We need a new policy.' "
But the senator refused to document his claim and a review by The Times showed that Mr. Kerry had made no official foreign trips since the start of 2002, according to Senate records and his own published schedules. An extensive review of Mr. Kerry's domestic travel schedule revealed only one opportunity for him to have met foreign leaders here.
After a week of bad press, Kerry foreign-policy adviser Rand Beers said the candidate "does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements."
The Democrat has also made his own veracity a centerpiece of his campaign, calling truthfulness "the fundamental test of leadership."
Mr. Kerry closed the final debate by recounting what his mother told him from her hospital bed, "Remember: integrity, integrity, integrity."
In an interview published in the new issue of Rolling Stone magazine, Mr. Kerry was asked what he would want people to remember about his presidency. He responded, "That it always told the truth to the American people."

The entire Democratic Party has made a cottege industry out of claiming, "Bush Lied!". Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, John Edwards and almost every other Democratic Senator and Congressman has at some point called the President a liar. More often that not they are refering to his statements about the WMD capabilities of Iraq. The same capabilities they themselves gave great speeched regarding only months before.

John Kerry has based his campaign on his assertion that the President did not choose war as a last resort. That assertion was at least partially based on his supposed meeting with the UN Security Council when, he claimed, they discussed options other than war, options he claimed, the President was not interested in. We now know that the person who has been lying to the American people is John Kerry. He looked directly into the camera and lied during the second debate. He has used extrapolations of the lie in almost every campaign speech. He has in effect built his campaign against the Iraq War on a lie. He has stated that he would have done everything differently, that he would have built a legitimate coalition before going to war, he based that assertion on his meeting the UN Security Council as well. Without that meeting, his entire grievance against the war in undermined And considering he has based his run for the Presidency on that grievance, his campaign may well be undermined too.

More on this story from Hugh Hewitt,RedState Roger L. Simon, and Michelle Malkin.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.