Lame-Ass
Has the shine come off of the Breck Girl yet? John Edwards is a didactic turd of a speaker and a phoney populist. Tell me again why Lurch picked this charlatan. I can't think of a single reason. He is manifestly unqualified to be the Vice President. He has no apparent grasp of History or foreign policy. He is the very definition of an empty suit.

Kerry should be defeated for no other reason than his choice of running mate. Edwards is almost as lame a nominee as Dan Quayle.

Hot Babes (Or, a Shameless Bid to Increase My Traffic)

"Bouncing off the Walls"
Mood:  celebratory
According to Dhimmicratic shill Al Hunt, the Kerry campaign is cratering:

Dispirited Democrats -- prominent senators, top fundraisers, even a few Kerry confidants -- have told the candidate, who is in Nantucket, that high-level changes are imperative. A few very well-connected Democrats report something will occur in the next few days. One person who might assume more control is Joe Lockhart, a former press secretary to Bill Clinton and a respected public-relations figure, but one who has almost no experience in the high-stakes world of presidential campaigns. Another possibility: veteran Democratic politico John Sasso, currently at the Democratic National Committee.

If there is a change -- Sen. Kerry privately is said to be "bouncing off the walls" in frustration -- it has to be imminent as the eight-week campaign is in full swing by Labor Day. "We have 48 hours," acknowledges an insider.

Posted by Toby Petzold at 4:25 PM CDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Tuesday, 31 August 2004 4:38 PM CDT

Gurkha
Mood:  d'oh
To be honest, I didn't even know that there were a dozen Nepalese in Iraq to be killed. But, sadly, there were:

An Iraqi militant group said it had killed 12 Nepali hostages and showed pictures on an Islamist Web site on Tuesday of one of them being beheaded.

"We have carried out the sentence of God against 12 Nepalis who came from their country to fight the Muslims and to serve the Jews and the Christians...believing in Buddhah as their God," said the statement by the military committee of the Army of Ansar al-Sunna.

Well, Mo, I think you may have just fucked yourself. Why? Just one word will do:

Gurkha.

Unremembering Peshtigo
Had it not come so soon after the atrocities of 11 September 2001, the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 on 12 November 2001 would today be more widely regarded as the tremendous disaster it was. Two hundred and sixty-five people died over Queens, New York in what we have been told was a massive mechanical failure of the plane's tailfin. But it is a disaster that, for many Americans, has strangely vanished in the shadow of the first horror ---not unlike the way in which the Great Chicago Fire of 8 October 1871 has obscured the national memory of another horrible disaster that occurred that very same night at Peshtigo, Wisconsin. More than 1,100 people died in a conflagration of that town ---far more than the number that died in Chicago. Were both towns destroyed by a comet or asteroid of some kind? It is a question that has interested me for some time now.

And, so, we turn to the case of American Airlines Flight 587. There may be some reason to believe that it, too, was brought down by a terrorist. See Daniel Pipe's latest essay on the disturbing possibility.

I don't know whether we are having our collective chain yanked on this or not, but if it is true, it must only serve to remind us that we cannot retreat to our towers and crank up the drawbridge behind us: we must, instead, actively seek out these bastards who would do us harm and kill them ---not negotiate or wait for some mythical alliance to form, but proactively and aggressively go to where these murderers breed and crush them under our heel.

Why? Because our system is better than theirs ---and the whole world knows it. So do bandana-faced pussies with their camcorders and "No Blood for Oil" placards. Fuck these chumps. They've all gone French in the head.

(Thanks to Dr. Keith C. Heidorn for the picture from Frank Leslie's Illustrated.)

The Real Digital Brownshirts
Courtesy of Little Green Footballs, I hear that the wretched pricks at IndyMedia are getting investigated by the Secret Service.

Fucking sweet:

The Secret Service is investigating the posting on the Internet of names and personal information about thousands of delegates to the Republication [sic!] National Convention in New York, officials said Monday.

The probe focuses on anonymous postings on a Web site operated by the Independent Media Center, which describes itself as "a network of collectively run media outlets for the creation of radical, accurate and passionate tellings of the truth."

And, of course, the ACLUniks are backing up these patriotic Americans. Hopefully, they'll get their asses slapped with some major lawsuits or worse if something happens to the delegates. Keep your eyes peeled and see this post I made last week about these IndyMedia bastards.

He's a Loser, Baby....

(Courtesy of Allah)

Giuliani's Just Kicking Ass
This is a great speech. More like a performance, ranging from high to low. And he's totally broken it off in Kerry's backside. I don't think the crowd knew what to do, but they loved it, anyway.

Digging Giuliani
I'm loving this. Giuliani's saying that some ideas are more equal than others. Damn straight. It's about supporting an Administration that's going to destroy pieces of shit ---or supporting a bunch of clowns who want to negotiate and equivocate.

Still reeling from Edwards' remarks. Just balls.

McCain Is On
John McCain is on right now. He's sounding pretty conciliatory. Except towards the anti-American asshole Michael Moore. Go get 'em, John.

Hannitize This
Mood:  irritated
Have I mentioned lately that I can't fucking stand Sean Hannity? I just saw him [interview] long-time CBS newsman Bob Schieffer and the guy's just a jerk. If you'll shut up for half a second, Chris Matthews, Jr., you'd find that Schieffer is someone worth listening to. He was practicing as a real journalist when you were in diapers. So, shut up and let your interviewees answer your questions.

Oh, and this "Hannitization" shit? Just step off.

John Edwards' Utterly Laughable Response
President Bush made what has to be called a misstatement in an interview with NBC's fluff artist Matt Lauer a few days ago (which aired this morning, apparently), saying that he didn't think that we can win the war on "terrorism." But, clearly, he meant this in the conventional sense of warfare between states. The President then expanded on his observation:

"But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world. Let's put it that way."

Bush, of course, is right. We will never see a formal declaration of surrender from the Islamofascists because they do not adhere to the formal, conventional modes of warfare. They are stateless, asymmetrical networks of murderers, fueled on by insane beliefs in martyrdom and paradise. They have no proper capitals to surrender or tenable terms to seek.

So how does the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee respond to this remark? By wrenching it from its context and utterly perverting it into some sort of squeal for help from Bush. Fucking ridiculous.

Sen. John Edwards, the Democratic vice presidential candidate, said Bush's comment underscores a key difference between the two tickets.

"We believe -- John Kerry and I -- that this war is winnable; they don't," Edwards said.

Does it get any stupider than that? Nope. The quote is so obviously decontextualized and misrepresented that anyone who hears Edwards respond to it in the way he has would immediately smell a rat. And I think it will come back on the Breck Girl in a big way. Because if there's anything that Bush's supporters and opponents both can agree on is that this President is determined to kick these Islamofascists' asses like they've never been kicked before. And Edwards has the temerity to spin this half-remark in such a way as to boast of his and Kerry's greater determination? Get the fuck out of here!

The Kerry-Edwards campaign said Bush flip-flopped on the issue, and released previous comments from the president saying that the war on terror could indeed be won.

I mean, who in the fuck is buying this gibberish? You really have to own some stones to believe that Kerry and Edwards know something more and have a greater commitment to fighting the Islamofascists than does the Bush Administration.

We absolutely cannot have these Democratic clowns take over come January. They are essentially unserious panderers. What else would you call a couple of flippers who vote for the war and for the Patriot Act, but against the means to sustain the effort and against the protections afforded by the laws we need to fight the terrorists?

Waffled, Then Lied About It
Why did the Kerry daughters get booed last night at the MTV Video Music Awards? I'm not getting it. Surely the crowd there didn't know or care about the lie that Kerry told in West Palm Beach last week when he claimed he voted for the Helms-Burton sanctions against Castro (emphasis added).

Speaking at a rally, the president said Kerry flip-flopped on the Helms-Burton Act signed by President Clinton in 1996 that tightened the U.S. economic embargo against Cuba.

Speaking in Spanish, Bush said, "He voted yes, then he voted no."

Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said Kerry had voted for Helms-Burton twice but voted against the final bill because he objected to certain provisions. Singer did not elaborate on the language Kerry opposed.

As The Corner at NRO asks, are we beginning to notice a pattern here?

Hello to My Friends at The Left Coaster
Now Playing: "Stand!" by Sly and the Family Stone
So I'm sitting here watching daytime TV and I learn from Extra! (don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about) that protesters aren't allowed to cover their faces in New York City. Did you know that? I didn't. I think it's great. People who care enough to practice civil disobedience or otherwise exercise their rights should stand by their own identities.

Body Count
Saw quite a few protesters on the streets of Gotham today. Maybe a quarter-million? You know, it's always dangerous to guess at such things. The idea is that, if you don't give the performers enough credit for their level of [commitment], they blow their stack and call you names. So, I say it was a full third of a million [patriots] on the march today. God Bless 'em All!

I'm told that an acquaintance of mine has gone up to take part and take some video. Maybe he'll let me post some of his shots when I see him again.

Stradivarius
Mood:  a-ok
Can it be played any better than this?

President Bush on Saturday described John Kerry's tour of duty in Vietnam as more heroic than his own service in the Air National Guard, saying his Democratic rival had been "in harm's way."
But the president told NBC's "Today Show" that both sides should drop the debate over their wartime service, saying, "I think that we ought to move beyond the past. ... The real question is who best to lead us forward."

Asked if he believed that he and Kerry "served on the same level of heroism," Bush replied, "No, I don't. I think him going to Vietnam was more heroic than my flying fighter jets. He was in harm's way and I wasn't."

Excerpts of the interview, conducted on Saturday for broadcast on Monday, were released by NBC.

The president continued to defend his own service in the Air National Guard, saying, "On the other hand, I served my country. Had my unit been called up, I would have gone."

Oliver North's Open Letter to John Kerry
Be sure to read this open letter from one of our nation's finest anti-Communists to the slanderer John Kerry. It's a pummeling:

The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.

When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.

The Kerrion are absolutely wrong about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. They want to insist to the nation that Bush is behind it all, but without any real evidence. And, after all, when you look at what these men are saying, is there any doubt that this is a personal matter first and a political matter second? Sure, it's fair to say it's both, but come now! This is perhaps their last chance at redemption in the eyes of History. This is a grand stage from which they will have one last furious soliloquy in defense of the defining moment in their lives. To deny the human and personal element in these attacks is to be completely deluded.

From my own perspective (I was still a toddler when the Viet Nam War ended for America), I can't pretend to know the intensity of these feelings ---but I absolutely do not doubt them. But if that intensity can be made to serve the purpose of defeating a man whose mistrust of American power is staggeringly deep, then I am all for it. Whatever it takes, gentlemen, whatever it takes.

Semi-Diplomatic (with a Full Clip)
Get on your knees, mon frere: Mo has a demand:

An Iraqi militant group has kidnapped two Frenchmen and given the French government 48 hours to end a ban on Muslim headscarves, Arabic television station Al Jazeera said on Saturday.

The channel aired a brief video showing two men standing in front of a black banner bearing the name of the Islamic Army in Iraq. One man told the camera: "I would like to tell my family that everything is OK."

As it is an impossible term of surrender to meet (even for the French), the only outcome can be the murder of these two journalists. Which leads to the greater issue: how does France suppose, while it still bears some resemblance to its original ethnic and cultural constitution, that it is going to survive its inevitable confrontation with the Mohammedan menace without actively participating in this war that we and Britain and Italy and many others are fighting against it? These stupid wine stewards are still proud enough to believe that they have some future as an alter-hegemon to the United States (through their manipulations of the EU) ---never stopping to consider that their only path to self-preservation is by cooperating with us.

I personally hate the notion that the beautiful art and architecture of that once-important country could be rubblized by the jihadis in its midst, but what can be done?

They should have elected le Pen when they had the chance.

Kerry's Incompetent Campaign: The Lewinsky Gambit
Have you heard this hypothesis? That John Kerry's campaign is actually cratering and losing control so as to create the appearance of a victim being bullied by the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, thereby drawing the sympathy of swing voters?

Don't forget that Bill Clinton is the most popular Democrat of the past quarter-century ---and he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. Even though the great majority of the American public knew he was a liar and a philanderer. And even though he betrayed many of the basic liberal tenets of his party and sold out the Left wing to save his own job, Democrats still revere him as everything from the "first black President" to the Greatest Fundraiser Ever Known.

So, in a sense, Viet Nam is John Kerry's Monica Lewinsky. Everyone accepts that he was involved for all the reasons any man is (the rush of excitement, the thrill of the chase, the glory of blasting away at all your frustrations, the dangerous allure of the forbidden, etc.). But, once it's done, you can't put it down or lie about what happened. Other people are involved, too. Maybe they don't want to be slandered or exploited to prop you up in your ambitions. Yet, none of that matters. You just have to win. So you do what comes naturally: take everyone down with you, dishonor what should be honorable, and pull out all the stops. Your ego demands it. And in the end, if enough people hate your enemies as much as you do, the prize may be exoneration.

Yeah, it's a risky strategy, but how else does one explain the incompetence of these people? The surface of John Kerry's contempt for intellectual honesty and ideological coherence has barely been scratched.

Let's please move on. The medals thing is starting to rob us of valuable time needed to examine the 1970-1972 anti-war period.

Devastation, Distilled
As ever, the Belmont Club has put the whole matter of John Kerry's candidacy in its proper perspective:

John Kerry's troubles have largely been forced on him by the Democratic Party platform. He has been given the unenviable task of presenting it as the War Party when in fact it is not, nor does it want to be. The Democrats could have chosen to become a real anti-war party, in which case it would have nominated Howard Dean or it could have elected to become a genuine war party and chosen Joseph Lieberman. Instead it chose to become the worst of all combinations, an anti-war party masquerading as the war party.

What else can one add?

Once the Democrats had ended their infatuation with the impolitic and unstable Dean ---knowing full well that the man would guarantee a loss dwarfing McGovern's in 1972--- they cast about for a nominee who could contradict George W. Bush in one particular only ---that of military experience. They believed that their rabid opposition to the War for Iraq would somehow be exonerated through the heroism of a long-serving Senator whose bona fides in both war and protest were beyond question. Kerry would be able to make the chickenhawk label stick to the evil neocons. Kerry would be able to point up the failures in the Bush Administration's diplomacy and consensus-building. Kerry would bring un-preemptive, unimaginative, and status quo ante thinking to our nation's foreign and military policy. In other words, he was the Left's long-awaited dream of an isolationist with enough medals to cover his ass and theirs.

But along the way, these ostriches forgot that Kerry's political life began with enormous slanders of his fellow veterans and his country's military, in general. Did they think that such criticism would be forgotten by people outside of liberal Massachusetts? (That's more evidence of their insularity and arrogance.) Did these Democrats think that Kerry's anti-war activities would engender trust and confidence in him as a Commander-in-Chief?

Most people see Kerry as a self-aggrandizing opportunist who can't be trusted to stand for anything for long. Who can believe a multi-millionaire ---who's married to a multi-billionaire--- on the subject of taxation and health care and public education? Average folks know he doesn't know shit about how these things affect them! They see him as a man of privilege who's simply gunning for the last job on Earth that could sate his ambition. And they hear him flip-flopping around, trying to land on the exact right words that will buy him their votes.

Kerry has done much in the past three weeks to demonstrate that he is unequal to the challenge of intellectual and ideological consistency. And as a political strategist, he has done himself a huge disservice, surrounding himself with young, ill-informed, and programmatic shills who lack the nerve to tell him that he is fucking up big time with his response to the Swift Boat Veterans. Booming about with his dare to "bring it on" while pleading with the President to make his allies stop picking on him? It's pansy-assed. Almost as pansy-assed as sending Max Cleland, the mascot of victimhood, to Crawford to deliver a letter to the President in an embarrassing act of political theater. What the hell is this man thinking?

I have spent the last two months or so believing that this race is Kerry's to lose. But, now, I'm not so sure. It may actually turn out to be a landslide for Bush.