Oh, I Know What It Was
Maybe this is what got Black pissed at me:



But it's true. Kerry did do that. See my post of 15 July 2004 called "Keep Hoax Alive".

I Have Been Banned from Eschaton
The proprietor of the Leftist blog Eschaton has banned me from his comments section. I'm not sure why Duncan Black chose this particular moment to ban me because I have been a frequent commenter there for several weeks and have said far "worse" things than I did tonight. But it may be that the Left are getting worried about the burden they bear from Michael Moore's lies and the growing perception that John Kerry's war record is coming back to haunt him.

Or was my mention just then of Joe Wilson's lies about Iraq's pursuit of yellowcake enough for Black to ban me? I can't imagine that. I would like to imagine that I was banned because I am not the troll that they would wish for, which is an easily pissed-upon bomb-thrower, but someone who knows his facts and is getting angry about the Big Lie that the Kerrion are pushing.

As I say, John Kerry may very well be elected President this November, but it will only be because the Left are liars and hypocrites. They are unprincipled isolationists who do not know what our role in the world should and must be. They are almost criminally inconsistent and ill-informed about our foreign policy and the nature of our alliances. Kerry's victory would be a victory for Islamofascism. There is no question about that.

So enjoy your little echo chamber, Duncan: you may very well be the first ostrich to stick your head up your own ass to drown out the sound of the cowardly and deceitful gibberish in your little pen.

Not Being There
That does it! Tom Maguire's JustOneMinute must now be blogrolled. He and several other troublemakers are now asking what Kerry meant when he said the following on the floor of the United States Senate in 1986:

Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia.

I have that memory which is seared-seared-in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm's way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible in order to avoid that kind of conflict.

Kerry, of course, wasn't anywhere near Cambodia. So why was he lying about such a thing?

That's got to be worse than Gore remembering being rocked to sleep as a little boy to the sounds of the "Look For the Union Label" jingle ---of the 1970s.

Go check this stuff out. The nutjobs on the Left and Big Media don't want to tell you that these Swift Boat Veterans for Truth may just actually be telling you, uh, the truth.

Boghopper
Now Playing: "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" by Queen
I'm catching the last half of Tim Russert's CNBC program with Paul Krugman and Bill O'Reilly just now and I'm noticing that O'Reilly has a really thin skin. Ever noticed that before? It's that grudge-carrying mick hotheadedness. Of course, next to Sean Hannity, O'Reilly is Bertrand Fucking Russell.

You gotta be cool, Bill. That commie dwarf is getting under your skin.

Thinking Out Loud: Did Kerry Meet with the Communists in 1970 and 1971?
I'm still trying to piece this stuff together, but it looks like John Kerry was a freelance negotiator with the Viet Cong and the Government of North Viet Nam. How did that work? Was he some sort of spy or traitor or what?

In his opening remarks to Senator Fulbright in the famous hearing of 22 April 1971, Kerry said the following (emphases added):

My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterally and, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer. I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned.

I think this negates very clearly the argument of the President that we have to maintain a presence in Vietnam, to use as a negotiating block for the return of those prisoners. The setting of a date will accomplish that.

And check out this article at WinterSoldier.com by Jerome Corsi, co-author (with John O'Neill) of the new book Unfit to Command. Looks like Kerry was making deals with the Communists:

On June 16, 1971, the communist Daily World newspaper quoted Kerry as planning a month-long trip to South Vietnam in July to report on "what is really happening" to the American soldiers over there. Newly released FBI files on the VVAW also report that John Kerry made a second trip to Paris in the summer of 1971 to meet again with the Vietnamese communist peace delegations and try to arrange a prisoner release.

Like I say, I'm still trying to figure all of this out. It doesn't matter whether I am spreading lies and slanders because that's now been shown to be an irrelevancy this year. What matters is how well I can malign the character of a man who served his country in uniform.

That is, if it happens to Bush, it can happen to Kerry, right?

Get Some!
There has been no terrorist attack on us domestically in almost three years. To what can we attribute that? Pure luck? In some cases, probably so. But we can also credit our own vigilance and that of the Government at every level.

And you can bet your anti-war asses that our men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq are keeping those psychopaths down on the farm. In just the past 72 hours, we have exterminated at least 300 of Sadr's rats ---many of whom are surely al-Qaedists, Iranians, and other foreigners looking to kill Americans. Better they try and die over there than succeed over here.

The question, then, is why can't the anti-war Left get it through their heads that we are safer because of the proactive course that President Bush has taken? The Islamofascists are on the run and hiding out from us because we have taken the fight to them. And our brave men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan have drawn these filthy bastards out of their holes and killed many thousands of them in the past three years.

The denial of these correlations by the anti-war Left reminds me of Peter Jennings' idiotic observation earlier this year that, although our crime rates are dropping, more and more Americans are getting locked up. Well, duh.

Summer of 1971: John Kerry Meets with the VC Outside of Paris
Around June 1971, while still an officer in the United States Navy, John Kerry met privately with Madame Binh, the Viet Cong's representative at the Paris Peace talks. Why would this have even been allowed? Kerry's campaign admits it happened, but he owes my generation an explanation. Maybe we just don't understand how that's not treason.

He's a War Hero, So Let Him Prove It
Be sure to check out this link-filled post over at JustOneMinute.com about John Kerry's war record.

Sure, maybe it's chickenshit and maybe it's not, but the important thing to remember is that George Bush was a deserter who received an honorable discharge. Why, that makes sense!

A Machine Gunner's Account of the Scariest Day of His Life
Mood:  special
As Greyhawk over at The Mudville Gazette says, you won't read anything else like this all day long.

What can a civilian say? Just get some, friend. I am in awe of what you went through. Thank you.

Cigar Store Indian
Here's something to chew on: yesterday, Kerry said that he would have excused himself immediately had he been in George W. Bush's chair there in that classroom when word came that we were under attack on 11 September 2001. And, of course, his audience approved. (See, those seven minutes the President wasted would have made all the difference in the world.)

But where was John Kerry that morning? As we learn from RedState.org, he was unable to think:

"...And as I came in [to a meeting in Sen. Daschle's office], Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon..."

Senator, if you're going to chew on the America-hater Michael Moore's chocolate, I'm not going to listen to your chickenshit anymore, okay?

UPDATE: Mayor Giuliani thinks Kerry is a Moore-on, too:

"John Kerry must be frustrated in his campaign if he is armchair quarterbacking based on cues from Michael Moore." Mr. Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" chides the president for remaining with the students instead of leaving immediately upon hearing of the second attack.

Was Kerry a War Criminal?
A reader of this blog suggests a rather scurrilous article at CounterPunch.org that details John Kerry's combat actions. I don't know how much of it is true, but does that even matter much anymore? As I say, this election is all about emotions and impressions. Whichever side's propaganda machine is the most effective is going to get the prize, so have at it:

A former assistant secretary of defense and Fletcher School of Diplomacy professor, W. Scott Thompson, recalled a conversation with the late Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr. that clearly had a slightly different take on Kerry's recollection of their discussions: "[T]he fabled and distinguished chief of naval operations,Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, told me --30 years ago when he was still CNO [chief naval officer in Vietnam] that during his own command of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam, just prior to his anointment as CNO, young Kerry had created great problems for him and the other top brass, by killing so many non-combatant civilians and going after other non-military targets. "We had virtually to straitjacket him to keep him under control," the admiral said. "Bud" Zumwalt got it right when he assessed Kerry as having large ambitions --but promised that his career in Vietnam would haunt him if he were ever on the national stage."

(Hat tip to DeepBlade.)

Question
Why do Leftists support military intervention in places where there is no strategic or economic value to our country, but oppose such intervention in places where we do have strong interests? Is America's access to the flow of Middle Eastern oil not something worth fighting for? Are the untapped consumer markets in the Arab/Muslim world not our first and best entree to begin the changes there that we all know are necessary to the liberation of those regions?

The Left have an extremely ignorant and hypocritical view of our place in the world and in History. Their idealism often runs ashore on the reality of our own economic imperialism.

After all, what else (besides religious liberty) motivated the exploration and colonization of our own hemisphere? America began as a commercial enterprise. That doesn't make us less valid as a civilization; indeed, our economic power and our liberties and democratic values go hand in hand. They are exportable and influential in ways that not even Rome could have known.

The long journey that George W. Bush has begun is, I believe, one of the most important ones our country will ever take. At the end of it, if any such journey can be said to have an end, is the secularization and incorporation of Muslim civilization into the modern world that we Americans have done so much to create.

The Left may be revolt at the notion of an American-ordered world, but it's one that affords as many opportunities as responsibilities. We cannot avoid our role or misunderstand it.

Strongarming 'Em
The Kerrion are trying to strongarm local TV stations into not running the new advertisement from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. But why? Kerry has made his service record a central part of his campaign. And now other men who served on the same rivers on the same missions in boats just like his and who knew him and his crew are disputing his claims. Let them have their say. If what they are saying is false, let the Kerrion prove it.

See, it's a lot like the approach that Bush-hating propagandists take: throw a bunch of accusations out there and call it freedom of dissent and skepticism. It's an approach that's been validated by the Left over and over. So enjoy it, fuckers.

Right and Wrong
I've seen this story at several of my favorite sites, but go to the Power Line to check out some links to the new ad from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ---an organization set up to counter John Kerry's claims of his Viet Nam War service record.

Personally, I am not sure that attacking Kerry on this issue is smart or fair. As a man who has never served his country in uniform, I don't think that what Kerry went through in combat is something I am qualified to speak to. I will never know the fear or exhilaration that he must have known. And, so, I am obligated to honor his service and remember the sacrifices that he and his fellow servicemen made in defense of my country.

But as a citizen who is extremely interested in the choice that we will all be making in just a few months, I believe that Kerry's claims are a legitimate area of interest. He himself has made it so with his very conspicuous use of that record throughout his campaign ---especially during the recent Democratic National Convention. If he has exaggerated his claims or lied about some part of his actions, that is something that deserves to be known.

President Bush has not made an issue of his own service record, most likely because he knows that it is a modest one compared to many others. But it has never been fair to subject him to the outrageous charges of desertion or cowardice. Never. George W. Bush served his country by training to fly combat aircraft ---not a cowardly task to undertake. And he was honorably discharged, which would not have happened had he been guilty of the desertion so many have accused him of.

Among those accusers are people who never served their country in uniform, such as Terry McAuliffe and the traitor Michael Moore. Both of these pieces of shit have explicitly and repeatedly charged the President with shirking his duty. That is false. And they've been wrong to do so.

If these charges that the Swift Boat Veterans are making are proven true, McAuliffe will deserve much of the blame for making this a partisan issue ---and he will be made, along with Kerry, to pay the price of using the Senator's service record to bring so much calumny upon the President's.

Let's see what Big Media does with this new ad. My guess is not much.

"Harshing Your Mellow," Indeed!
Mike over at Cold Fury imagines an answer to the press from Secretary Tom Ridge. And he goes off.

Dig it.

The Patriot Act As an ACLU Prop
Get a load of this article by Vanessa Blum of the Legal Times. Is the ACLU using the Patriot Act to generate some bidness?

Regardless of whether the ACLU has been fair in its characterization of the Patriot Act, its public relations campaign has been enormously effective. Since Jan. 2002, the organization has recruited more than 240,000 new members. In 2003, the ACLU collected roughly $1.6 million in donations over the Internet, compared to $630,000 in 2001.

Never mind the facts: we've got some Bush-bashing to do!

(Hat tip to the Instapundit.)

Check Out Feinstein
Are we, as a friend suggested to me yesterday, seeing our Bill of Rights "flushed down the toilet"? I don't think so. But what is the biggest piece of evidence that the Bush-haters cite to show that our Constitution is in danger? The Patriot Act.

Somehow, this bete noir of the liberal library-going set authorizes Big Brother to come and root around in your bee's wax, checking out what you've been checking out of the library. The Patriot Act enables Government to pretty much do whatever it pleases with you and your property all day long. It sounds really intrusive, doesn't it? But is it actually happening? Not according to Dianne Feinstein, the liberal (I mean progressive) United States Senator from California:

"I have never had a single abuse of the Patriot Act reported to me. My staff e-mailed the ACLU and asked them for instances of actual abuses. They e-mailed back and said they had none."

As Paul Rosenzweig of the Christian Science Monitor said:

There is no abuse of the Patriot Act. None. The Justice Department's inspector general (who is required by the Patriot Act to examine its use and report any abuse twice a year) reported that there have been no instances in which the act has been invoked to infringe on civil rights or civil liberties.

In an article written by US Congressman Peter King (NY-R) and former New York Mayor Ed Koch, they speak to one of the more infamous provisions:

* Sec. 215 - the much-feared "assault against librarians" - has not been used even once. Nonetheless, we strongly believe this is a weapon that must remain in the prosecutor's arsenal. There could well be cases, for instance, when it would be critical to learn whether a suspected terrorist is reading books on explosives or the structural design of office buildings, landmark sites, bridges or tunnels. It should also be noted that library records were instrumental in tracking down such murderers as the Zodiac killer and the Unabomber.

And these guys were nabbed a long time before there was a Patriot Act. How could that be? Hmmm. Maybe the Constitution has been allowing for such "abuses" as snooping into people's records forever ---and we just didn't notice it before. At least not until we had a big, fat Orwellian-sounding name of a law to swing at and be [oppressed] by.

It's not unlike Abu Ghraib: the anti-war crowd didn't know to be upset about it until CNN showed them the pictures.

Not Playing in Peoria
Mood:  don't ask

Euphemism Update
Ladies and Gentlemen:---

Be sure to update your glossaries. Liberals are now progressives.

That is all.

Reconquering Andalusia
Lawrence Wright has written an excellent article in the 2 August 2004 issue of The New Yorker that certainly merits your attention. It is a very long and detailed examination of the al-Qaedist threat in Spain and elsewhere in Europe.

Muslim immigration is transforming all of Europe. Nearly twenty million people in the European Union identify themselves as Muslim. This population is disproportionately young, male, and unemployed. The societies these men have left are typically poor, religious, conservative, and dictatorial; the ones they enter are rich, secular, liberal, and free. For many, the exchange is invigorating, but for others Europe becomes a prison of alienation.

Wright's first focus is on the Madrid train bombings of 11 March 2004 and how they were carried out. And, in doing so, he paints Prime Minister Aznar's government as completely dishonest about the culpability of the Basque terrorist group, ETA. Aznar and his ministers knew early on that ETA had nothing to do with the atrocities, but did not want to pay the price of admitting al-Qaedist responsibility so close to election day. But, just a few days after the atrocities, the Spanish people rejected Aznar's government and capitulated to the demands of their own countrymen's murderers. There may yet be a lesson in that for our own country.

And, in light of Homeland Security's terror alerts of the past few days, read what Wright has to say about the long-term planning that these terrorists engage in (emphasis added):

One of the most sobering pieces of information to come out of the investigation of the March 11th bombings is that the planning for the attacks may have begun nearly a year before 9/11. In October, 2000, several of the suspects met in Istanbul with Amer Azizi, who had taken the nom de guerre Othman Al Andalusi--Othman of Al Andalus. Azizi later gave the conspirators permission to act in the name of Al Qaeda, although it is unclear whether he authorized money or other assistance--or, indeed, whether Al Qaeda had much support to offer. In June, Italian police released a surveillance tape of one of the alleged planners of the train bombings, an Egyptian housepainter named Rabei Osman Sayed Ahmed, who said that the operation "took me two and a half years." Ahmed had served as an explosives expert in the Egyptian Army. It appears that some kind of attack would have happened even if Spain had not joined the Coalition--or if the invasion of Iraq had never occurred.

That is to say, these atrocities are prepared for in the long-term and are independent of any particular political motive. The al-Qaedists --- Islamofascist sociopaths--- are not in the business of death because of some Earthly aspiration so much as they are seeking the paradise of martyrs. These are murderers without frontiers and without regard for Western man. Some day soon, we will all have to wake up to this reality and crush these roaches ---without equivocation or nuance. We will simply have to do it.