No amount of the hydrogen-PC isotope could keep the USOC's elcubo-skin balloon
Humble Jingoist afloat, as evidenced by its post launch-attempt statement.
- USOC Statement
Statement regarding U.S. athletes celebrating with the American flag in Athens
By Jim Scherr // USOC Chief Executive // May 18, 2004
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 18, 2004
Statement From United States Olympic Committee Chief Executive Jim Scherr Regarding U.S. Athletes Celebrating with the American Flag at the Athens Olympic And Paralympic Games
"The United States Olympic Committee wants to make it absolutely clear that we have not -- and will not -- instruct our athletes to refrain from waving the United States flag during the upcoming Athens Olympic and Paralympic Games. Any suggestions or statements to the contrary do not reflect the official position of our organization.
Athletes will be free, as always, to celebrate their performances in an exuberant, respectful way during the Olympic and Paralympic Games. We will remind our athletes that they are guests of the Olympic movement, Greece, and the city of Athens and to be good ambassadors of our country, their communities, families and sports. We want our athletes to be champions who conduct themselves with class and, if it is the case, to lose with grace and dignity. Additionally, we are reminding them to treat the United States flag with the respect it deserves.
One of the proudest moments of my life was to put on my USA warm-up and represent my country at the 1988 Olympic Games. I know our athletes feel the same way today and we will not in any way infringe upon that honor.
Accomplishments of athletes and teams such as the 1980 United States Olympic Hockey Team, the great Billy Mills, swimming legend Janet Evans and countless others have inspired our nation. We are certain that the athletes who represent the United States at the 2004 Olympic and Paralympic Games will do the same."
Contrast that with lead balloon no. 1
—Mike Moran, former spokesman and current athlete-behavior consultant for the United States Olympic Committee:
What I am trying to do with the athletes and coaches is to suggest to them that they consider how the normal things they do at an event, including the Olympics, might be viewed as confrontational or insulting or cause embarrassment....
Unfortunately, using the flag as a prop or a piece of apparel or indulging in boasting behavior is becoming part of our society in sport because every night on TV we see our athletes—professional, college or otherwise—taunting their opponents and going face-to-face with each other.
We are trying for 17 days to break that culture. What I am telling the athletes is, 'Don't run over and grab a flag and take it round the track with you.' It's not business as usual for American athletes. If a Kenyan or a Russian grabs their national flag and runs round the track or holds it high over their heads, it might not be viewed as confrontational. Where we are in the world right now, an American athlete doing that might be viewed in another manner.
(via Charles Johnson, "US Athletes Told to Cool it at Olympics," Little Green Footballs
, May 16, 2004); and with lead balloon no. 2
—Bill Martin, acting president of the United States Olympic Committee:
We are not the favourite kid in the room as a country. We are sensitive to the issue of flaunting and jingoism in its raw sense. This is going to be a tough Games for us as a country.
(via DeoDuce, "More Ridiculous and Other Matter," The Daily Spork
, May 29, 2004).
Rule 1: Our team only has to reach the goal line to score a touchdown, but yours has to go past it, into the parking lot, down the road, onto the highway, into the next town, hop aboard a spaceship, land on the moon and reach the goal line inside an atmospheric-domed stadium that won't even be built for another thirty years, before we'll admit you scored one.
ules are meant to be broken and the laws don't apply to everybody.” This famed liberal mantra is at the heart of every response by reactionaries in the We the Haters of the United States of America kookoo-brainedom™ to news after news after news that we've found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (from "you haven't found any
WMDs whatsoever, so you lied!" to "you've only found one, so you lied!" to "you've only found a couple of pre-Gulf War ones, so you lied!" to "you haven't found any significant stockpiles
of any, so you lied!" etc.) and that there indeed was a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq before the war ("there wasn't any
connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda whatsoever—they hated each other—so you lied!" to "it's all just 'a mixture of forged documents and blatantly false assertions that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda,' so you lied!" etc. etc.).
Liberals have repeatedly been wrong on both the issue of Iraq really having actual weapons of mass destruction right before the war and that of Saddam Hussein really having actual connections with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network as far back as 1998.
So much for the willingness of Ostrichcrats and other anti-America liberals to actually support any real deals during this war.
(Last link via Betsy's Page; penultimate one via Amf, "Sarin gas discovered in Iraq," America's Debate, May 17 2004, 06:41 PM.)
Overtly adhering to our enemies, giving them aid and comfort, is always something ugly to witness.
When Mount Goritoba erupts
with more than mere bile.
(Original photograph and link via Rachel Lucas
, via Emperor Darth Misha I
First in a series of not so creative things you can do with your waffles. (Please do try this at home.)
s a wee Ch-ch-children™, one of my first discoveries was how much fun it is to fling things. Toys, leaves, small pebbles, kittens, you name it. Anything unfortunate enough to find its way into my clutches was twice, often three times more fun if it was flung.
Now I never once got around to flinging any waffles; and for this I feel my childhood was somehow robbed the full package of fun it could have had. Nevertheless, although being wrongfully deprived this activity may give the impression that it was less than completely fulfilling, I don't blame my parents for their stubborn refusal to keep a constant stockpile of waffles in our refrigerator. Looking back I realize they must have harbored a deep-seated prejudice against them over pancakes. Nor do I blame society or the government either, since it wasn't their job to establish anything like a Bureau of Waffles for making sure that every child in America always had a readily flingable supply close by. Had I been born into some rich family in Colorado, or liked putting qetchup on my waffles instead of syrup, I might have had a lot more than I did. Not being able to eat all of them I might have thought: "These extra waffles on my plate will just go to waste if I don't eat them all. But I can't because I'm stuffed and already have much more than my tummy could ever hold. So instead of just tossing them in the garbage (which doesn't sound like much fun at all) why not see if these babies will put my $1,000 gold-leafed, ruby-enameled, diamond-encrusted Frisbee® to shame?" And thus the fun idea of tossing around waffles could've been discovered right then and there.
But it's never too late to capture fun.
One politician who bythewayservedinVietNam likes to fling things too because, after all, it's a very fun thing to do. However, in his case it wasn't just waffles, but these strange medals that are shaped like ribbons and, coincidentally enough, weird-shaped ribbons that look a whole lot like medals. Plus his system of flinging has a distinct advantage: You don't even have to really own the things you're flinging. As if there really were a U.S. Department of Flingable Waffles, Ribbons, and Medals handing out free things to each and every American for them to fling. Like an entitlement of sorts.
So do your government and your fellow citizens a real favor. Whenever your have a stack of waffles on your plate which you simply can't eat, don't throw them in the trash where they can be taken away to clog up our landfills. Do the right and patriotic thing. Give them all a good toss. Not only is it fun, but it'll help save the environment.
Speaking of flingable things (my apologies to John Masefield):
- Poll Fever
I must go down in the polls again, in the Newsweek poll cited by K. Rover,
And all I ask is a handful of waffles and a fence to fling them over,
And the flip's flop and the flop's flip and the policy stances' stinking,
And a new shot for this long face, and a new hope sinking.
I must go down in the polls again, where my call for a running mate
Is the first call on the Do-Not-Call lists of "friends" who sense my fate;
And all I ask is one floppy disc when all my "plans" need storing,
And the French vote and Kim Jong Il's too and leave the independents snoring.
I must go down in the polls again, in spite of how much I've lied,
In an election loss I see looming closer toward a 50-state landslide;
And all I ask is a family SUV with neither ding nor dint on,
And long restful drives someplace far away after I'm replaced by H.R. Qlinton.
And he says "it sounds Grrrrrrrrreat!"
| ELECTION NEWS:|
| ·||Kerry Won't Delay Accepting Nomination|
| ·||Poll Shows Voters Prefer Bush at Barbecue|
| ·||Kerry Seeks More Homeland Funds|
| ·||Election Worries Civil Rights Groups|
| ·||Kerry Holds Big Lead Over Bush in California|
| ·||Ohio Voters Could Hold Key to White House|
| |Candidates' Iraq Policies Share Many Similarities
[ AOL link ]
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and RICHARD W. STEVENSON, Ye Olde Fork Tongues
Inside This StoryJump Below:
· Compare the Candidates
· AOL Member QuotesTalk About It:
Post | Chat
Who would do a better job with Iraq?
Can you distinguish between the candidates' stances on Iraq?
|Total Votes: 104,797 |
|Note on Poll Results|
WASHINGTON, May 25 — When it comes to Iraq, it is getting harder every day to distinguish between President Bush's prescription and that of Senator John Kerry.
r...no it's not.
So says, too, the hundred thousand folks who've read this inkwaste and decided to respond to your own poll.
They still differ on some details,
Try almost every detail. Granted, they do both call that country over there "Iraq." And they both printed their respective plans in English. (For sake of argument, we'll pretend that Qerry's ramblings constitute "a plan.") But that's as far as any sharing of substantive details between the two go.
...and Mr. Kerry continues to assert that Mr. Bush has lost so much credibility around the world that only a new president can rally other nations to provide the necessary assistance, a point he made Tuesday while campaigning in Oregon.
"Around the world," in Modern Liberalese (and its backward dialect QerrySpeak), means from the Pyrenees Mountains eastward until you reach the western border of Poland. Known around the real world as Irrelevantland™.
OK, al-Qerry, you seriously think that "rallying" the few remaining nations who aren't already strongly standing with us in this war (47 at last count) is going to somehow help us? How would we go about getting those last three "major" holdouts to change their minds now? By our caving in to France's demands that we don't harm a hair on any terrorist's widdle head until we have 17+ more Security Council resolutions expressly authorizing us to massage his follicles with a good scalp rub (but no further!), and then only after there have been 13+ additional years of ineffectual sanctions? By our bribing Germany and Russian with exclusive rights to lucrative oil contracts in Iraq? What makes you believe even those things would get any of these three nations to actually help us the way the United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, Australia, Turkey, Philippines, Poland, Netherlands, South Korea, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Singapore, Colombia, Romania, Panama, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Denmark, Ethiopia, Angola, Albania, Nicaragua, Rwanda, Eritrea, El Salvador, Uganda, Ukraine, Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Macedonia, Uzbekistan, Mongolia, Costa Rica, Iceland, the Marshall Islands, Kuwait, Azerbaijan, the Solomon Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Tonga, and Afghanistan are helping us now?
Sounds like what you want us to do, Hanoi John, is tow whatever lines France, Germany, and Russia set down for us so we can get them to commit about 50 troops and a few tanks each. What makes you think you'll have any better luck with these three obstinate weasels who are envious of our country and all we've accomplished without their so-called help? Your ability to speak fluent French? Pull-leeez.
But as became evident with Mr. Bush's latest speech on Iraq on Monday night, which followed a detailed speech Mr. Kerry gave on Iraq's future one month ago, the broad outlines of their approaches are more alike than not.
"Detailed"? Let's take a look at what the UBLPAC-backed candidate actually said.
Following Qerry's bald lie that President Bush "declared 'mission accomplished'" (he didn't; although our president did say:
- Yet all can know, friend and foe alike, that our nation has a mission: We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace.
Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike.
which were the only two times he used the word "mission" and not in the context of it being accomplished), and Qerry's second lie that "it is not a time for blame" (that's all Hanoi John ever does with his "this administration has failed
—a word he repeated eleven more times just in this one speech), he finally presents
his wonderful "details"
Such as "we cannot depend on a US-only presence" (see list of 47 countries above) but must "build a political coalition of key countries, including the UK, France, Russia and China" (UK - check; those "other nations" - see list of weasels above; China - giving it more secret satellite-guidance technology like Traitor Qlinton did is probably the only way you'll ever get it to "join in this mission"). Next, Qerry wants our "US-only" coalition to install an "international High Commissioner" (à la East Timor—talk about failure!), while imposing some larger foreign military presence across Iraq (that's bound to show the Iraqis we aren't occupying them), and
request beg the UN, would it pretty-please "provide the necessary legitimacy" for it all. That's not, Qerry admits, the total final solution for Iraq. Even more foreign military forces, including those from NATO, will be headed for Iraq. ("Siddiq, I thought we were liberated from military rule." "Just wave your tiny French flag at these passing tanks, Dhakwan, and be quiet.")
After we "personally reach out" to NATO members, they'll feel they "have been treated with respect" and will happily send another slew of occupying troops. (Yay for the "liberated" Iraqis!) But al-Qerry wants us to ease them in at first before we really "open the door" for some real heavy-duty occupying. Of course we'd be "ending the sense of an American occupation" but starting the sense of a massive, UN protectorate-type one. (Yay for Siddiq and Dhakwan!)
Meanwhile, back at the High Commissioner's
ranch overpriced cushy office, this "highly regarded" guy (or gal) will be "charged with overseeing elections, the drafting of a constitution and coordinating reconstruction." Not even Saddam had so much power. ("Keep waving, Dhakwan.") Since he'll (or she'll) have "the credibility to talk to all the Iraqi people" she'll (or he'll) be working with everyone in sight to make sure that Iraq is moving "on the path toward[sic] sovereignty." (Forget that June 30th, business, Dhakwan. It's not like our nation gave you her word of honor or anything.)
As his/her Highness the Commissioner is passing out select oil contracts to Germany, France, Russia, and China, the new and expanded version of Iraq Occupation, Inc. will be training and providing "backup" for Iraq's soldiers and "policemen" (that's sexist Qerry's word).
Any more "details"? (Nope, we're done.)
That is particularly true as Mr. Bush moves toward giving the United Nations more authority, a move long advocated by Mr. Kerry.
It's always safe to assume that whatever al-Qerry has "long advocated" in the past is not the same thing he's advocating today or will be advocating tomorrow or, for that matter, even in the same speech. This "more UN authority" stuff flies dead in the Botox-laden face of his "security force...clearly under US command" and his requiring that the HC "should be directed to work with"—i.e., limited by the decisions of—non-UN "participants." So much for having any real powers. But if reporters Nagourney and Stevenson want to deem this "giving the United Nations more authority," who am I to argue with employees of Jayson Blair
's former funland?
They both support the June 30 deadline for the beginning of the transition to civilian power.
No, they don't. Bush Administration officials say that if the Iraqi government ever wishes us to be gone on or after July 1, then we will leave. That's what normal people mean by respecting a country's "sovereignty." In al-Qerry's parallel universe, that word means a kind of process that you're ensuring you continue to move forward on a path toward, never quite actually getting there. Nowhere near the same thing, Nagourney and Stevenson.
They both say they would support an increase in United States troop strength, if necessary.
Again, no. President Bush has said that if our military commanders there in the field request more troops, he'll approve that request because he trusts their judgment. (Unlike the way Johnson tried to micromanage Viet Nam.)
Beardless Lurch, on the other hand, says he wants more troops there no matter what they request.
Neither has supported a deadline for removing United States troops.
In the sense that Hanoi John never really supported them going over there to begin with, this is technically true. Sure, there are—not one—but two reporters from Ye Olde Fork Tongues writing this stuff. Even so, it doesn't take a foreign policy expert to say how utterly stupid that would be announcing to our enemies how we'll be leaving on such and such a date, whether or not our job there is done. It shouldn't even take what passes for brainmatter in some reporters' heads that neither has supported equally stupid stuff like bungee jumping without a cord. But any more sentences like the one above and people may start to wonder.
Mr. Bush's gradual shift away from what many Democrats have long denounced as a go-it-alone stance is an adjustment to the surge in violence in Iraq, as well as the deterioration of domestic support for the occupation in the wake of the prison abuse scandal.
But there also is clearly a political component at play here, as the White House seeks, while managing its own problems, to create a predicament for Mr. Bush's Democratic opponent. Mr. Kerry this week is beginning a series of speeches in which he will lay out some of his most detailed foreign policy pronouncements.
Going it alone with 47 other nations has kept a more than expected surge from erupting into some "plunge into full-scale civil war" which Dhimmicrats and their media accomplices have been predicting, expecting and hoping for since Day 1. As far as domestic support goes, no doubt the constant negative, gloomy drumbeat of only the bad news out of Iraq from that media, and not a peep at all about the already abundant and increasing amount of good things going on there every day, will eventually make people wonder too why "our side's" reporters are sounding a lot more like Al Jazeera's these days than usual. Incentive enough to turn to actual fair and balanced news sources to find out what all is really happening in Iraq.
On the Issues
|"We must supply our military commanders with the additional troops they have requested." -- April 17 speech Read More||"If [the U.S. needs] more troops, I will send them." -- May 24 speech Read More | Audio: Hear It|
Before last week no one but Diddlecrats were
requesting screaming at the top of their moonbatitis-filled lungs for any additional troops. When our military commanders asked that week for the transfer of 3,600 American troops from South Korea to Iraq, their request was immediately approved.
|"NATO agreement to take on this mission should be reached no later than the NATO summit in late June." -- Campaign statement Read More|
Watch Video: Kerry's Policy
|"At the [the NATO summit] we will discuss NATO's role in helping Iraq build and secure its democracy." -- May 24 speech|
Another whopping difference. Al-Qerry wants an agreement in place before the summit even begins. How about that for our going it alone without hearing what our allies have to say first? Kinda invalidates the point of even having a summit, wouldn't you think? What kind of leadership is that? Likely not the kind of tone you want to set for any summit, going into it the way Hanoi John's prescribing. Unless you really don't care about having a productive summit.
The only similarity here is an acronym.
|"The creation of viable Iraqi security forces - military and police - is crucial to a successful exit for us and other international forces." -- Campaign statement Read More||"Eventually, [Iraq's military, police, and border forces] must be the primary defenders of Iraqi security, as American and coalition forces are withdrawn." -- May 24 speech|
Audio: Hear More
Those "other international forces" in al-Qerry's stance include French, German, Russian, and Chinese "peacekeepers." Don't remember seeing their names on the "US-only" coalition's goitalone, 47-nation list.
The fact that Mr. Bush has moved close to Mr. Kerry on some of these questions...
Wait. What's this "some" business? You've been saying all along "the fact is" their two plans are almost completely identical except for a few minor variations regarding the word "France." (President Bush usually likes to just use the acronym CESM.)
...makes it much more difficult for Mr. Kerry to take advantage of what Democrats and Republicans view as the biggest political crisis of Mr. Bush's presidency,
Three thousand Americans and other nationals being slaughtered in under two hours by throat-cutting terrorist hijackers who destroyed two of our nation's tallest buildings and one wing of our Pentagon—and almost the White House and/or Capitol too—cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered a big crisis, political or otherwise, of anyone's presidency. Nonetheless, if he'd caved into the terrorists, and asked over and over again "why do they hate us? what did we do wrong?" like Dhimmicrats and other liberals did, there's no doubt it would've been a supersized political crisis for him and all those in our government real quick. Not that this would've lasted long, to be sure. His impeachment in the House and subsequent conviction in the Senate would've sailed right through the Congress in record time. The only concern afterwards would be who President Cheney would nominate as Vice President.
...by emphasizing differences between them. Mr. Kerry is left to argue that while both men have similar ideas about what to do,
...he has more credibility to do it, given the breakdown in relations between Mr. Bush and many world leaders over Iraq.
France hates us. Germany hates us. Russia just dislikes us a little. Oh, yeah, Belgium really, really hates us. As everyone knows, those four nations are "everybody." Yet Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry speaks fluent French, and probably likes cheese, and definitely likes waffles, and maybe even cuckoo clocks. So that's three of those four he can show his "credibility" to (not that they'd be interested in actually seeing it). Now all he has to do is start drinking copious amounts of Vodka and we'd be all set because no one ever again will make us feel insecure about how, somewhere, some of them might somehow ever, ever hate us.
You want to know real hate. Find and play the Nick Berg video and listen to those "Allah Akbars" before and after the real haters silenced his screams. Listen to the trembling voice of the flight attendant calling from that hijacked plane and describing how one of the passengers was lying dead in the aisle with his throat cut—or her "I see water and buildings...Oh my God, Oh my God" before she too was silenced.
Then try to compare that to the so-called hate emanating from a few envious former allies who let us down (not the other way around) when we needed their help the most to ensure that Saddam Hussein would no longer ever be a threat or hindrance to us in any way as we hunted down and completely destroyed all our terrorist enemies, including the ones he supported. These former friends, whose native soil is literally filled with many, many times more fallen young American men and women who fought and died liberating their countries from another brutal dictatorship, than all the brave defenders of our freedoms who've sacrified everything for our own and another people's liberty, have no justification whatsoever for "hating" us. Anyone who says he's concerned about whether they hate us or not is only trying to find a justification for that hatred himself.
Mr. Kerry has negotiated the shifting sands of Iraq for more than a year now. Some Democrats said that their candidate would just as soon stand back and not engage Mr. Bush on the war, allowing the president to struggle with setbacks, while avoiding making himself a target should Mr. Bush attempt to suggest that he is not supporting the troops.
That's right, Qerry. Offer nothing constructive, Just more of those "this administration has faileds," while those in your own party who would despise you, except for their need to use you in their AnyoneButBush campaign, wring their hands over how they might get away with replacing you with a "more viable" candidate at the first opportune moment. That's what your party stands for. Beat Bush! "We will win! We will win!" it shouted, and "Fritz! Fritz!" at the memorial service of another senator whose own words, sadly, no one in your party's leadership seems to want to hear anymore:
- Politics is not about winning for the sake of winning. Politics is about improving people's lives.
The only positive thing that can be said about his death now is that he is no longer here to witness what your party—the one he loved and devoted himself and his passion for doing right to—has become in its final, ugly years.
So sit back. Enjoy this media driven ride. Just don't expect any of them to come to your rescue after they plunge your car off the bridge and leave you struggling for air as they swim off and let you finally drown.
Kerry asserted that it would take a new president to... re-establish battered relations with former allies.
But as Mr. Kerry is well aware, there is a growing antiwar segment of the American electorate. And there is likely to be an antiwar candidate on the ballot, in the person of Ralph Nader, the independent candidate who has called for an withdrawal of American forces.
In another sign of the complication Mr. Kerry faces, Al Gore, one of the party's severest critics of the war, is to deliver a speech in New York on Wednesday that is expected to call for the dismissal of top administration officials and assert that Americans have been put at risk at home and abroad by Mr. Bush's foreign policy. (See Story From AP)
Now how did The Slimes get advance notice of what was in Gore's speech? Yeah, silly question. Letting it know he's going to bash our president and call for the resignation of practically his entire cabinet, as well as speak out against a war we're right in the middle of trying to win (albeit the New Yuk Times isn't really hoping that we do because that might shine too much of a spotlight on the futility of its beatbush! series of reports), was the only way Gore could pique its interest enough for it to finally send someone to cover one of his speeches. Being that its anti-win the war editorial policy nicely matches up with his own now, and all.
"He's caught between what would be politically advantageous, declaring a timetable for getting out, and what he knows is the reality on the ground, which is that we need more troops," said one adviser who Mr. Kerry relies on heavily. "And the internal debates have often been between the camps in the campaign who want a clear break from the Bush policy and those who want to portray Bush as largely incompetent in executing what strategy they had."
Such a positive message! Voters surely will be falling all over themselves flocking to it.
How about this: Send in 200,000 French troops and give them a timetable of 10 days to surrender to the first Iraqi military patrol they stumble across. The new Iraqi army can show its sovereign militariness and the French their incomparable surrenderingness all at the same time.
Mr. Kerry's advisers minimized the extent to which Mr. Bush's shifts had made him less vulnerable to criticism on Iraq, and disputed the notion that Mr. Kerry has not, or could not, draw differences with the president on this issue. And they noted a series of recent polls that show both a drop in support for the occupation of Iraq and concern over whether Mr. Bush has a plan to end it, arguing that the issue was more of a problem for Mr. Bush than it was for Mr. Kerry.
Messrs. Nagourney and Stevenson must have interviewed these advisors before our president's speech. Still, they found all that beatbush! strategizing
You Said It
T2 Farmer Says:
"We need to stay the course that President Bush has laid out for Iraq."
"John Kerry as a Democratic candidate for president has said more about how to fix Iraq than the sitting president, the commander-in-chief, the person who lead the nation into this war," said Stephanie Cutter, a senior Kerry advisor.
(Misstephanie Miscutter, misyou misforgot misa misprefix missomewhere misin misthere.)
Want to "fix Iraq" and good? Just turn everything we've accomplished so far—like getting electricity running throughout the country and refurbishing the rest of its economic infrastructure—over to an inept, corrupt, Sex-for-Food starved UN, and see how long before it all goes back to pot. Or allow some international, interagency, interceding, interposing nightmare of an ineffectual force—whose complexities would make Hilldabeast's Healthscare network of intermingled bureaucracies look streamlined—roam about the countryside for a few months and the Iraqi people will be pleading for the much simpler form of brutality of their former dictatorship.
In a speech last month, Mr. Kerry said the goal of the United States should be to bring about "a stable, free Iraq with a representative government, secure in its borders." That position is broadly indistinguishable from that of Mr. Bush.
It's also broadly plagiaristic. Should al-Qerry be getting advice from Senator Biden?
The differences, as they exist, are relatively minor.
Make up your "minds." Your flip-flops are almost as worn out as Qerry's.
Mr. Kerry has called for NATO to take a major role in Iraq, freeing up American troops and providing an opening to attract military support from non-NATO nations like India and Pakistan.
Ah, yes. President Bush's proposed mixing up of the military forces of these two nuclear-armed adversaries right in the middle of a nearby war zone. Almost forgot about that "relatively minor" difference in the two plans.
Mr. Bush has left open the possibility of a larger role for NATO, but has not pressed hard for such a change, and administration officials are skeptical that Europeans have any desire to contribute more assistance than they already have.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Tuesday that Iraq would be discussed at the NATO summit at the end of next month in Turkey, and that 16 of the 26 NATO member nations are already involved in Iraq in some way.
See? Qerry wants an extremely large NATO presence in Iraq as soon as possible, and President Bush says not so fast. No differences exist here either.
More From The Times
· Tracing Berg's Odd Path
· Aspirin May Prevent Breast Cancer
· The Stress of Business Travel
He said that NATO has not ruled out an expanded role in Iraq, but that there is no consensus on what that role would be.
"We should not go into this, as some critics have, thinking that, you know, all you have to do is go to NATO and there is a huge body of troops waiting there just to be asked," Mr. Powell said.
Better not tell Hanoi John that there isn't. It might upset his "plans."
Mr. Kerry has also called for the establishment of a United Nations high commissioner to oversee the political development of Iraq and the rebuilding efforts. Mr. Bush has more or less embraced the need for the United Nations to authorize a multinational force led by the United States - a position long pushed by Mr. Kerry - but has signaled no support for putting additional direct power in the hands of a United Nations commissioner.
"More or less" apparently has the same meaning as "no difference" in libberish. Must make a mental note of that for future reference.
The core of Mr. Kerry's argument is
a meaningless assortment of garbled nuances
...that Mr. Bush is now viewed with such low regard in Europe
Also, "France and Germany" means "Europe." (Oh, plus Belgium.) But doesn't include United Kingdom, Italy, Poland, Netherlands, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Denmark, Iceland, and—before al-Qaeda bombed Madrid—Spain.
...that it would take a new president to put together an international coalition. Mr. Kerry asserted that it would take a new president to "clear the air" and re-establish battered relations with former allies.
Trying to "clear the air" with the French might prove extremely difficult, however (if not outright impossible). Introducing them to the American concept of daily showering could backfire and wind up offending them more instead.
News in a Flash
See headlines in just 90 seconds from ABC News.
Administration officials have been dismissive of Mr. Kerry's idea of putting a United Nations high commissioner in Iraq. They have argued that the Iraqis do not want the United Nations in power any more than they want the United States in power.
"This is not East Timor," one senior administration official said, a reference to the breakaway Indonesian territory where a high commissioner was put in place.
May 26, 2004
Our mission also includes making sure they stay liberated. The Iraqi people still have that empty feeling and foul taste from the Ululating Numskulls' oil-for-food program stuck in their mouths. Throwing them to the wolves of a EuroUNion-run protectorateship —leading there to a very real quagmire—would be saddamistically cruel.
Or will he? Al Qerry never says the same thing twice. That's called 'nuance.'
man walked out of a bar, both arms raised straight up in the air. Soon a woman came out doing the same thing. When another person left, both his arms raised, he ran into a friend who was on her way in. "What's up?" she asked. "They have the game on in there and our team just scored a touchdown?" "No," the man said. "Al-Qerry's in there and he's teaching everybody how to speak French."
Here's another: Article II of our Constitution says that the president, "together with the Vice President," shall both be elected. But the Twenty Second Amendment says, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." Also, the Twelfth Amendment says that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Yet the Dems say, "So what? We can nominate John Qerry's pal Bill Clinton—the impeached, twice-elected president—as the former's running mate if we wanna." Hanoi John says, "Si vous faites ceci, je ne tournerai pas mon dos à lui." [excuse my *spit* French *spit*]
One more: The Republicans just finished their convention in New York. In Boston, reporters quickly gather outside Al-Qerry's Base Headquarters waiting for him to finally accept his party's presidential nomination. Instead of the French-looking, French-speaking senator they were expecting, Senator Hilldabeast of New York appears at the microphones. "I want you all to know that Dhimmicratic Party rules say that if a person nominated by our party for president hasn't accepted that nomination within fifteen days, that person is no longer eligible to receive it but may select someone else to be the party's nominee. Guess who he selected? Mmbwaha haha ha haha hah...."
Additional ones sure to follow as the joke known as the Dhimmicrat's presidential campaign "progresses."
Welcome to Liberal Logic 501. Please check your brain at the door and proceed with extreme rashness.
esson one. In the event you cannot effectively counter someone's argument with relevant facts and reason, simply tell that person he or she is a racist, a retard, or insane, and should "hurry up and die."
An exemplary student of this course followed that lesson to a tee, using all four vitriolic expressions, while commenting on Sir Banagor's "Extreme Replies" at Shining full plate and a good broadsword. Sir Banagor's response to it in "Racism" shows why the need for applying such lesson is so great among the left these days. It would be exceptionally difficult to try to counter his argument using anything else without looking racist, retarded, and insane yourself.
To illustrate the point, would the left call you a racist if you spoke in scathing, even vengeful terms against the Klan? or Nazis? Or would they applaud you for your "tolerance"?
How then can anyone stand up for an extremist culture that is much worse? The Klan never stoned their women for showing an ankle. Nazis even allowed their women to be "a major part of the workforce." Yet if you jumped all over a leftist the same way after he vilifies either of these societies (both of which are considered exclusively "pure" white), he and others like him would descend on you and call you a racist and a fascist.
Because the left sees America as she is today as their enemy, they are willing to give the one culture that is hell-bent on destroying her a pass when it comes to its demonstrably racist and fascist mores and traditions: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." What is the penalty for distributing the Christian Bible in Iran or Saudi Arabia? Who besides True Believers may hold any office in their respective governments? Does the left actually support any of that? to the point of defending this culture against anyone who rightly opposes it more viciously than one would oppose the Klan or Nazis? They must support it, judging by the way they mindlessly attack any of its detractors.
Unless they start being vocal themselves in condemning the brutish, extreme nature of this culture, one can only conclude that oppressive Shi'a Islam as a state religion, murderous Jihad against The Great Satan as any man's highest calling, and the resulting subjugation of all women and minorities, are things the left believes have to be tolerated. Such a high level of tolerance, however, inescapably implies acceptance.
Do you support these things or not? If not, why would you fail to openly condemn them as well? or, at the very least, why would you ever condemn anyone who does?
Nancy Pelosi just thought we needed to know what all the terrorists have been saying all along, 'sall. Like, you know, as a public service and stuff.
Pelosi Criticizes Bush on Iraq Policies
[ TehranTimes.com (May 22, 2004)
No. 20, Sahand St., Beheshti Ave.
WASHINGTON (AP)- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi lashed out at President Bush on Thursday, saying his Iraq policies show incompetence and the only conclusion to draw is that "the emperor has no clothes."
"I believe that the president's leadership and the actions taken in Iraq demonstrate an incompetence in terms of knowledge, judgment and experience," the California Democrat told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference.
efore anyone else piles on the Dhimmicrat's Leader, they need to view the full facts of this story. Clearly these aren't the words of a Member of Congress or one of the highest officials of a national political party during wartime. You see, it's like this:
About a week ago, Madam Leader received the latest issue of Sawt al-Jihad (Voice of Jihad) in her mailbox. It's just part of her "Pulling Curtains Back" on America's bloodthirsty, mortal enemies project. She wants to know what they're up to and saying. So she's reading the English version (PDF summary and analysis) of this al-Qaeda official magazine and seeing all the nasty, mean things they're saying about us and our president in it. She believes the American people should know about this too. So she urgently calls a press conference.
I mean, after all, this is the same magazine who's editorial policy is—
- My fighting brother,
Kill the heretic; kill whoever his blood is the blood of a dog; kill those that Almighty Allah has ordered you to kill….
Bush son of Bush… a dog son of a dog… his blood is that of a dog… Shut your mouth and speak with your other mouth - the mouth of the defender against his attacker. Rhetoric might cause retreat.
Not a very nice thing to say, now, is it? Northeast Intelligence Network
says the latest issue "contains roughly eleven stories or reports within its 42 pages, including an 'Editor's Note' that specifically addresses the recent audio tape message purportedly made by Osama bin Laden. The editorial makes a specific attempt to connect the alleged bin Laden message with a planned economic and political assault against the US to achieve the same results in a manner similar to the results achieved by the Madrid bombings." It's cover story is a report on recent metals-market manipulation. (Perhaps terrorists are looking for a way to increase the value of the gold they're offering
for the assassination of our leaders.) But where some may only dabble in such research of these fanatics
, our int
epid Dem Leader is really on to them.
At the press conference, Madam Pelosi merely told reporters what her counterparts in the terrorist organizations are saying.
Republicans swiftly responded by defending the president and assailing Pelosi for crossing the line for political gain.
Marc Racicot, the chairman of the Bush-Cheney campaign, described Pelosi's comments as a "reprehensible attempt to blame America for the actions of terrorists," and called on Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry to repudiate her remarks.
Now, see, this has all been an unfortunate misunderstanding. Here the Dhimmicrat Leader comes out and let's those of us who don't get Sawt al-Jihad know what the terrorists think; and this is the thanks she gets. As she keeps trying to say, these are "not my statements" but those of the terrorists.
The criticism of Bush - harsh even by the highly partisan standards in Washington - came as the president traveled to the Capitol to rally Republican lawmakers around his Iraq plan at a time of increasing violence in Iraq and outrage over Iraqi prisoner abuse by U.S. soldiers.
Bush told congressional Republicans he is sticking to a June 30 date for handing partial governing authority to Iraqis and that the Iraqis are ready to "take the training wheels off" by assuming some political power.
But the terrorists are saying things like "the results of [President 'Pharaoh' Bush's] action are what undermine his leadership" because "those soldiers are completely convinced of the lies and the unjust attitude of their government. Also, they miss a just cause to defend. The[y] only fight for the interests of the rich and those that lend their money for interest and the traders of arms and oil, including the gang of crime in the White House." Thus, "He has on his shoulders the deaths of many more troops." Yet "the shallowness that he has brought to the office has not changed since he got there."
Democrats, including Kerry, have been critical of Bush's stewardship of Iraq, but Pelosi's comments were the strongest to date. "This president should have known ... when you decide to go to war you have to know what the consequences of your action are and how you can accomplish the mission," Pelosi said. "There was plenty of intelligence to say there would be chaos in Iraq following the fall of Baghdad."
Plenty of intelligence to say al-Qaeda terrorists and Syrian commandos would try to create isolated hotspots and incidents to foment just a perception of "chaos" there. Dhimmicratic Leader Pelosi was only trying to tell us what our enemy already knows—that spooking our politicians with such imagined chaos is the only chance he has of winning the "propaganda" war and securing calls from them for our retreat: "we realized from our defense and our fight with the American enemy that it depends, to a large extent, on the psychological warfare during its fight because it possesses a huge propaganda apparatus. Also, it depends on intensive air bombing and, that is to hide its biggest weakness point which is fear, coward ness, and the lack of the fighting spirit within the American soldiers." Surely we needed someone to pull the curtain back on that.
Bush's policy "of ignoring his own State Department about what would happen after the fall of Baghdad and ignoring the intelligence as to the chaotic situation that would exist ... carries with it a responsibility for all of the costs of war," she said.
Madam Pelosi's purpose was not to offer any suggestions or constructive proposals for improving the situation. She just really thought we should know how much the terrorists are really counting on this perception of chaos to achieve their goals. After all, they're saying don't "pay attention to the futile solutions, the solutions of the prevaricators...who were preoccupied with their money and kindred and who were deceived by themselves." We should thank her for that heads up.
"And that's not only the president, that is all of us any time we vote to send our young people into harm's way. "The results of his action are what undermine his leadership, not my statements," she said. "The emperor has no clothes. When are people going to face the reality?"
In fact, what she said is what many terrorists are thinking. I think many terrorists want their leaders to speak out
on these issues: "As for President Bush...these are only some of the tools used to deceive and exploit peoples....Stop shedding our blood so as to preserve your blood....You know that the situation will expand and increase if you delay things. If this happens, do not blame us - blame yourselves. A rational person does not relinquish his security, money and children to please the liar of the White House....Reality proves our truthfulness and his [George Bush's] lie."
Note their emphasis on "the cost in lives ... the cost in dollars to the taxpayer, and the cost in reputation to our country." Dhimmitudic Leader Pelosi was only pointing this out, as well as how they think "Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader....He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon." She's seen the Sawt al-Jihad article which says his "capacity to lead has never been there. In order to lead, you have to have judgment. In order to have judgment, you have to have knowledge and experience. He has none." Isn't it helpful to know the thoughts of those who are desperately trying to annihilate us?
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said Pelosi's comments "were meant to inspire her political base. But who else do they inspire? If we followed Mrs. Pelosi's advice, Saddam Hussein would still terrorize the citizens of Iraq. We would still be waiting for the U.N. to make any decision regarding our national security." Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said if all Pelosi could offer is taunting U.S. troops "by saying they are dying needlessly and are risking their lives on a shallow mission, then she should just go back to her pastel-colored condo in San Francisco and keep her views to herself."
A Pelosi spokeswoman said that the congresswoman lives in a red-brick house.
I know Speaker McCarthy was trying not to get personal about it. Certainly, whether someone lives in a reddish-pink co
ndommunium is just a statement of fact. In the interest of finding out what the terrorists are thinking, however, we should concentrate on the editorials and articles in Sawt al-Jihad which Madam Pelosi was kind enough to quote from for us in her press conference and interview.
For this reason I believe every God-fearing lover of our country should email the Democrat Leader and say how much they appreciate her relaying to us these terrorist-supported thoughts.
The sooner we actually win this war (i.e., completely wipe out Islamonazism) the better chance they'll all have of returning home safely. Or they can all come home now, and then end up fighting the entire war right here. For whom, exactly, are liberals demonstrating support?
nti-war demonstrators say they're "against the war, but support our troops." How about they ask any of the people they say they're supporting whether he or she appreciates or ever sees any real evidence of such support. I believe the overwhelming answer these
anti-win demonstrators would get would be a lot like this Marine Corps officer's:
source: Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, "Inside the Ring," Washington Times, May 14, 2004; Bill Gertz, Inside the Ring Archives: 2004 Columns, "Support the troops," The Gertz File.
- Support the troops
A Marine Corps officer in Fallujah says in an e-mail that much progress has been made in killing insurgents and taming Iraq. But he worries about poll numbers.
"The Marines fought hard in Fallujah and took a lot of very evil people out of the fight," the officer wrote. "That effort, and the associated loss of Marine lives, was not in vain. We're already seeing a significant decrease in the enemy's ability to attack our forces. The supply lines are open again and everything is flowing freely through the country. Their efforts to cut us off in order to break our willpower failed. The Iraqi people are tired of the enemy, and they are turning them over to us left and right.
"We're reading that everyone back home is starting to lose faith in our efforts in Iraq. The last CBS poll put the numbers under 50 percent for the first time. I know that doesn't mean a loss in support for the troops, but supporting 'the troops' while not supporting the mission doesn't do much for us.
"The Marines are in high spirits. The troops in Fallujah are doing what Marines do best, and they're true professionals. Everyone else is driving forward, wondering what all the fuss back home is all about. We don't feel that we're losing anything. In fact, we're finally addressing issues that should have been addressed some time ago."
See also: Old Benjamin, "Fallujah Update," Advisory Opinion, May 20, 2004.
If I had a dime for each time Jerman-Frenchboy al-Qerry (the "al" stands for aloof) miserably failed to leave that word out of the interviews and speeches he's given since announcing his candidacy, I'd have more than enough to make this blog—plus a dozen others—completely ad-free.
osef Göebbels, head of Nazi Germany's Ministry for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda
, decreed a number of rules for making Adolf Hitler
effective. They pretty much boil down to these simple three:
1. The Big Lie
This is what Hitler, in his book Mein Kampf, considered a "sound principle," even when employed, as he alleged, by the Jooooos:
[T]he magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others; yes, even when enlightened on the subject, they will long doubt and waver, and continue to accept at least one of these causes as true. Therefore, something of even the most insolent lie will always remain and stick—a fact which all the great lie-virtuosi and lying-clubs in this world know only too well and also make the most treacherous use of.
TBL: An Example
"Dictatorship! Isn't the National Socialist Party essentially the German people? Aren't its leaders men of the people? How silly to imagine that this can be what the English call dictatorship! What we today have in Germany is not a dictatorship but rather a political discipline forced upon us by the pressure of circumstances. However, since we have it, why shouldn't we take advantage of the fact?"
Lothrop Stoddard, Into The Darkness: Nazi Germany Today
(1940); Project Gutenberg of Australia eBook, No. 0300731.txt
It's why, during Lothrop Stoddard's 1940 interview with Göebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister said with a perfectly straight face, "We Germans don't like this war" (although they sure had a funny way of showing it). Such a statement is so outrageous it defies reasonable belief. Another example of Göebbels' use of The Big Lie, taken from the same interviews, is shown in the box on the right.
"This administration has failed" is no-Qlue Qerry's version of TBL. Failure, in Qerry's worldview, means anything short of absolute perfection (if it was done by a Republican).
There hasn't been another terrorist attack anywhere on American soil, despite the terrorists' active, ongoing plans to do just that. Iraq's dictatorship has been completely toppled and is no longer in a position to offer actual or even potential support for any of those terrorists' plans. Libya's dictator is bending over backwards to eliminate that country's weapons of mass destruction so they won't ever fall into terrorists hands. Our economy is recovering very nicely despite our country having to fight a full-scale global war with the terrorists. Yet al-Qerry claims that "this administration has failed" on both national security and the economy. That's why his lie is as big as any of Göebbels'.
What does Hanoi John propose as an alternative to such "miserable failures"? In essence, higher taxes and relying more on the United Nations. Higher taxes, of course, would stiffle businesses' ability to expand and create more jobs, while greater reliance on a manifestly corrupt and inept UN would jeopardize any chance the world has of ever achieving total victory in its war on terror.1 The recession would reemerge then deepen, lasting for years. The terrorists would have real cause for hope, threatening every country for decades.
2. Mind-numbingly repeat TBL
Saturating the media, or at least his speeches and interviews, with TBL is the only hope al-Qerry has of making it stick. Since "this administration has failed" is not supported by any real facts, he hopes by repeating it over and over the public will eventually come to associate his new F-word with our president. It doesn't matter to him how superficial that association is, just so long as it's there.
a body of people, who, through political disaffection, self-interest, corruption, or ignorance, become the victims of enemy propaganda, and therefore, either consciously or unconsciously, materially assist the belligerent intentions of the enemy. The term was originated by General Emilio Mola, a leader on the Nationalist side during the Spanish Civil War, who made the statement in November 1936 that he had four columns advancing on Madrid, but that a fifth column of rebellious sympathizers, hidden within the city itself, would be the determining factor in assuring victory. The fifth column, strictly speaking, does not refer to direct traitors, espionage agents, and saboteurs, but to that element of the population which, through misguided motives, usually believes that it is acting in the best interests of its country. Adolf Hitler once said that "our strategy is to destroy the enemy from within," and Spain became the proving ground for German and Italian fifth-column techniques. It is the object of enemy propaganda to create chaos and confusion, to destroy national unity, to initiate rumors which will play on the nerves of the people, to inflame political, religious, ideological, social, and racial hatreds, and thus to retard preparations for defense and in general to sabotage the war effort. That element of the population which furthers these intentions, by falling a victim to enemy propaganda techniques, becomes the fifth column. This propaganda is especially effective when such basically commendable motives as the general desire for peace and social justice, or the fear of radicalism, are played upon and allowed to disrupt the concerted war effort. In addition to those who innocently help to spread this propaganda for presumably ideological reasons, and those whose patriotism is corrupted by self-interest, are others, such as those naturalized citizens and members of political groups whose predominant allegiance is to another country, who make a direct contribution to fifth-column activity. The use of a fifth column is not new to military history—Napoleon often used similar tactics—but its effectiveness was most clearly demonstrated during World War II. By fostering the growth of defeatists, fascists, rexist, and pacifist movements, and by relying on the support of quislings and such national minorities as the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia, the Axis achieved virtually bloodless victories in Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, Czechoslovakia, and other countries, or facilitated their occupation.
source: C[aleb]. W. D[avis]., "Fifth Column," Collier's Encyclopedia (New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1960), 7: 435.
But he needs the help of a Fifth Column media to make it stick. Being that his front-runner status is the sole creation of that media, it's a sure bet they'll go out of their way to help move
On.org along that TBL effort of his no matter what he says, thinks, or does.2
Also, since a lie is only as good as the lying liar who tells it, the Fifth Columners wearing press badges must cast their Baron von Münchhausen in the best possible moonlight. This requires them, among other things, to give the truant senator pass after pass after pass on his record of military service and its aftermath. For examples, al-Qerry gets numerous passes on his war crimes—crimes he admitted (under oath) to committing himself while serving in Viet Nam ("I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others...in that I shot in free-fire zones, fired .50-caliber machine bullets, used harass-and-interdiction fire, joined in search-and-destroy missions and burned villages."). He criminally failed to properly report any of his own atrocities as well as those he claims other soldiers committed ("Did not these [Rules of Engagement] that Kerry knew by heart also require a soldier to report war crimes, or attempted war crimes, by others? Did Kerry report this officer's illegal order to kill civilians to superiors? Or did Kerry remain silent, thereby becoming this officer's ally and enabler, if not accomplice?"). Not that he'd be willing to ever take the entire blame himself. After Lieutenant Calley was convicted of a war-related crime, John Qerry said "the real criminal" is the United States of America.
Has the Fifth Column media ever harped on any of this as much as they did week after week after week on the record of an honorably discharged veteran whom a few crackpotted nutjobs falsely said is a deserter? While crickets are chirping on this one, let's move on to even more of the real misdealings of Hanoi John's service record.
There's a real lack of records supporting the French-backed candidate's claim to at least one of his three Purple Hearts, compared to the strong evidence which shows John F'in' Qerry didn't earn his first Purple Heart. His own commander in the field staunchly refused to recommend him for that medal, so JFQ decided his only course of action was to finagle his way around those objections by going straight over the head of his commander to get it. That's how this walking billboard for Botox got his early ticket out of Viet Nam after serving only one-third of what was supposed to be a year-long tour of duty there. (Not even his abysmal attendance record in the U.S. Senate has been so bad.) Even more disturbing, once he returned home to the United States he promptly joined a radical extremist anti-war group and was still a member of it when it conspired to assassinate United States senators. Since he couldn't get the vacancies his group was shooting for there, he decided to just create a couple on his chest by tossing his ribbons (or medals) or someone else's medals (or ribbons)—he keeps waffling on the details—over some fence. Not surprisingly, all his former commanders—the ones who've truly seen his actual service record—adamently and unanimously say Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry is unfit to be commander in chief. Yet the crickets keep chirping in the Fifth Column media's front yards on these facts too.
While omitting from their stories those very credible accounts of this seasonal soldier's crime-spree in Vietnam, the same reporters and editors who call adhering to our country's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, "dissent," see no problem at all giving credence and much ink and airtime to the wild accusations and extremist claims running throughout Qing Qetchup's The Big Lie. However, the fact that this media have played and printed his French fashioned TBL innumerable times does not mean it's true.
Fonda's former flunky scribbles things like "This administration has failed to make its case on the international stage or to the American people for the rationale of starting the war [in Afghanistan] or for the means of ending it." Indeed:
Does al-Qerry not believe that the people who jumped to their deaths from either tower
or were crushed to death when it collapsed have themselves made our country's case for fighting every terrorist cell, group or organization, as well as every state that offers or may likely offer it comfort or assistance, until their loved ones and all other Americans are assured that no one else in this country need ever suffer a similar fate?
Or the people aboard any of four hijacked planes who called home to tell their loved ones, "I love you. I think we're going down, but don't worry. It's going to be quick," and "I want you to live your life. I know I'll see you someday"? Or those brave men and women inside the Pentagon who dedicated themselves to defending our lives and that of our Nation? All of them aren't "rationale" enough for taking out the terrorists and their actual and potential supporters whoever and wherever we believe they are or think they might be? And not stopping until that job is completely done?
Al-Qerry obviously doesn't believe so. He'd rather we turn the handling of our own security permanently over to a corrupt, French-obstructed UN. The same way he believes letting international organizations handle vital components of our economic security is the way to go there.
He says, "Year after year, [this administration] has consistently failed to represent U.S. interests in the global economy." This coming from someone who voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement before he voted for the World Trade Organization. Under the NAFTA treaty, a three-nation Free Trade Commission is established which "assists in the resolution of disputes that may arise between the NAFTA countries regarding the agreement." This so-called assistance includes approving all agreements on unresolved issues. With al-Qerry's consent, what was supposed to be a power that we the people vested solely in our Congress ("To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations") is now being exercised by this trilateral commission. How's that for representing our interests in the global economy?
The Qerry-approved World Trade Organization is even worse. Called "the most powerful legislative and judicial body in the world," this organization is more interested in protecting his wife's multinational assets than it is about respecting our national sovereignty. Yet Hanoi John wants to expand its powers even more, giving it the ability to bash Japan, China, and other countries for their monetary policy decisions. What it can do to one country it can do to ours. But that's all right in al-Qerry's globalistic view. He consistently believes international bodies like the UN and WTO know what's best for us anyway, much more than we do ourselves.
‘Tell a big enough lie often enough and some people—often many people—will believe it.’
Moreover, all the trade policies he's saying "this administration has failed" on, as well as many other free-trade schemes, were passed under Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry's watch with his full consent. He voted for renewing fast track presidential trade authority. He voted for expanding trade to the third world. He voted for permanent normal trade relations with China. He voted for removing common goods from national security export rules. He voted for granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. He voted for extending free trade to Andean nations. His "relatively modest" proposals for "better enforcement" of bad agreements and treaties won't help. Those never should've been passed by him and his colleagues in the first place.
When it comes to protecting our nation's security and interests, France's favorite candidate is the one who's failed. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on his way to Saudi Arabia, Qerry voted against pushing back the dictator. When we needed to fully upgrade our defenses with such advanced weapons systems as the B-1 bomber, the B-2, the F-15, the F-14A, the F-14D, the AH-64 Apache helicopter, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Patriot missile, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, the Trident missile, the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet, Hanoi John said no on every one of them. When this administration asked for body armor to protect our troops, Mr. Qetchup voted nay. When our troops requested a highly-earned and long-overdue pay raise, Lurch quipped, "Let them eat cake." He voted to cut, transfer or freeze defense spending 38 times, cancel military pay raises 12 times, raid the Social Security Trust Fund five times, freeze all defense spending for seven years, and cut $2.5 billion from our country's counterterrorism and intelligence budgets after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Despite his own record of failure after failure after failure, al-Qerry and his Fifth Column media cohorts will keep following Göebbels' first two rules to the letter, repeating his "this administration has failed" TBL until your ears bleed. These two rules, which are necessary for setting up a lie like Hitler's or Hanoi John al-Qerry's, can be summarized as follows: "Tell a big enough lie often enough and some people—often many people—will believe it."3 But you need one additional rule to keep any TBL going.
3. Personally attack anyone who questions TBL
Following this last rule changes the subject because your opponent is forced to respond with a defense of himself instead of a rebuttal to what was supposed to be your defense of TBL. Once you have in place a whopper of a Big Lie and a complicit Fifth Column media ready to ensure its endless repetition, nothing stands in your way of pulling it off other than the truth. Anyone willing to contradict your TBL with it, therefore, must be attacked.
In al-Qerry's case, these attacks take the form of deriding administration officials and other leaders who publicly point out the failings of his proposal for outsourcing our country's security to the United Nations and for scaling back security measures we've adopted to protect our borders and infrastructure, referring to such officials and leaders as "attack dogs" and "smear mongers." When they describe how his proposal would pose a real danger to America, for example, he takes it personally, saying they "dare question my patriotism." Also, because he's trying to use his four-month presence in Vietnam over 30 years ago as "proof" that he knows what he's talking about regarding our defense, he says these same officials and leaders are attacking that so-called proof too. That's utter nuance, and is itself a big lie as well since none of them have shown the chutzpah yet to call that spade the spade that it actually is.4 Meanwhile, America's mortal enemies make no secret how much they really appreciate what Hanoi John is doing against a sitting president in time of war, adding to their own propaganda his "this administration has failed" TBL smear tactic whenever they can.
Just calling any truth tellers "questioners of my patriotism" is, al-Qerry hopes, enough to put them on the defensive. Although such name calling is another ploy of big liars, which they believe helps them avoid facing any truth, it is nothing new.
In many crowd situations, the reaction of the group is determined by the behavior of a leader. Through the use of standard propaganda techniques, the leader frequently is able to crystallize previously amorphous activity and to direct the behavior of the crowd toward the accomplishment of ends that suit his own purposes. Among the commonly recognized techniques is "name calling." The leader or propagandist attaches a label to the object of his attack and relies on the tendency of his listeners to react to the name rather than to the characteristics of the object itself.5
"I served in Vietnam, and you're questioning my patriotism, you patriotism questioners," he accuses them. It is effective only if the truth tellers respond to his accusation rather than accuse him, in turn, of trying to change the subject.
Personal attacks are used to throw your opponent off balance. They can buy you time, especially with a media eager to devote its finite resources covering an entertaining spitball contest started by such attacks. They increase the Fifth Column media's ratings and the public's general ignorance of an otherwise stilted candidacy devoid of any real ideas, but which that media is banking everything it has on to swindle us out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and place it under the heel of its liberally biased estate.
Liberals, like Hitler, have always believed that The Big Lie is a sound principle. They were and still are willing to use it as much as possible to advance their continual quest to seize absolute political, social, and cultural power. The "this administration has failed" version of The Big Lie peddled these days by Herr Monsieur Hanoi John F'in' al-Qerry is no different.
LC Local 666, VRWC|
Subscribe to Liberal Utopia by Email
Monday, May 31, 2004
Sunday, May 30, 2004
Saturday, May 29, 2004
Thursday, May 27, 2004
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
Monday, May 24, 2004
Saturday, May 22, 2004
Thursday, May 20, 2004