Dear friends:
Our President has indicated that he will enact some of the 9/11 commission's recommendations within a short time, and that he will carefully study the long and short term ramifications of the entire report.
John Kerry stated unequivocally during his speech in Boston, that he would enact all of the recommendations immediately if he were President, and will enforce all of the changes if elected.
Following are 8 critical reviews and perspectives on the recommendations. Clearly there is not unanimity within the intelligence community and Senate. Nor have we as a nation had time to consider the efficacies of the individual recommendations and the costs associated with their implementation.
I believe that this issue is the most salient of the considerations on the agenda for voters as we approach November. Without a secure homeland; jobs, the economy, taxes and immigration won't matter. Radical, fundamentalist, extremists are looking for their place within our society, just as cancer looks for a host environment within healthy body tissue. Once in, the steady and menacing process of destruction commences. Unless the cancer is placed in check, completely destroyed or cut from the body, the outcome is destined to be grim.
We need to understand the cancer targeting our homeland, and with a united voice launch an unforgettable defense. Our ability to accomplish that rests within our knowledge of the subject.
You will certainly not agree with all of the reviews that follow, they are sent to you for your information and consideration as you begin to formulate your own opinions on the subject.
Thank you for your support. Please share this information with your address books.
Sincerely,
Susan Moses
----------------------------------------------------------
Washingtonpost.comLearning From 9/11Sunday, August 1, 2004; Page B01
Would a cabinet-level director for coordinating the nation's sprawling intelligence apparatus make America any safer?As the Senate began scrutiny last week of the 9/11 commission's central recommendation, Outlook sought answers from seven former guardians of national security: William S. Cohen, John Deutsch, Robert C. MacFarland, Phyllis Oakely, William E. Odom, and John J. Devine, Stansfield Turner. The Post's culture critic, Philip Kennicott, assesses the unusual novelistic style of the commission's official report.© 2004 The Washington Post Company----------------
--------------------- William S. Cohen-----------
washingtonpost.com
William S. CohenSunday, August 1, 2004; Page B04
The purpose behind creating a national intelligence director (NID) to coordinate all of our intelligence agencies is to reduce or remove the structural "stovepipes" that impede the flow of vital intelligence within and between agencies. The 9/11 commission was right to give this need a high priority -- and it was also right to identify the need for agencies to put greater emphasis on sharing intelligence rather than shielding it.This does not mean, however, that the need to protect sources and methods of intelligence collection will be any less important. Establishing a "joint staff," like the one that currently exists in the Department of Defense, could help meet the twin needs of disseminating and protecting intelligence. Such a staff would also be valuable in planning counterterrorist activities involving multiple participants.Creating an effective joint staff will be no easy task. Traditions and old habits die hard. It took more than four decades for our military services to conclude that serving on the joint staff was a positive contribution to national security and not a career-ending assignment.One of my principal concerns about the commission's recommendations is making sure that the NID office, however it is structured, is prohibited from having any advocacy role on operational matters. This is essential if we want to reassure the public that intelligence, which from pressure or favoritism. Those charged with collecting, collating and distilling intelligence should not indulge in policy debates. Past examples should remind us of the danger and folly of allowing this.Here, Congress must be vigorous in the exercise of its oversight responsibilities. And as Congress examines deficiencies within the executive branch, it should give equal weight to the need to reform its own budgetary and oversight processes.In order to mitigate concerns over the politicization of the NID, I also suggest that the director have a fixed term, rather than be subject to the political fortunes of any given president. The measure of success for an intelligence chief should not rest on a personal bond with the president. The relationship between the two should always be cordial, but above all else, it should be professional.If we are serious about real reform, we have to contemplate both the intended and unintended consequences of any changes that are made. Arguably, for instance, creating the NID could add just one more layer of bureaucracy over existing processes. But virtually every reorganization of an institution aimed at improving efficiency and decision-making will eventually reveal weaknesses or produce dislocations that will, in turn, need to be reengineered.The need for thoughtful examination of the commission's recommendations should not be used as an excuse to delay action. The urgency of the commission's findings require us to make haste, but wisely. We cannot afford to temporize in dealing with the threat of terrorism. Whether the commission's recommendations are adopted in whole or in part, it is important that we recognize that old ways have to yield to new demands if we hope to win the long struggle against an implacable, ideological enemy.William S. Cohen, secretary of defense from 1997 to 2001, is chairman and CEO of the Cohen Group.© 2004
The Washington Post Company--------------------John Deutsch----------
washingtonpost.com John Deutsch Sunday, August 1, 2004; Page B04
The Sept. 11 commission report presents a compelling case for greater centralization of U.S. intelligence activities, but its recommendations fall short of achieving that goal.Establishing a cabinet-level position -- a national intelligence director (NID) -- is no substitute for properly aligning authority with responsibility. And the commission, while calling for one person to manage national intelligence, does not insist on giving that person enough authority to carry out that responsibility.Under the commission's proposals, the director would lack authority over the budgets of most of the Defense Department's intelligence programs -- Joint Military Intelligence Program (JMIP) and Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities (TIARA) -- as well as the FBI's national security activities. What's more, it remains unclear to whom the director of the National Security Agency (NSA) or the chiefs of other intelligence agencies would report. Requiring the NID to function through three "double-hatted" deputies -- who would simultaneously be running their own agencies -- would sharply limit his executive authority. The national intelligence director could become no more relevant than the drug "czar."The 9/11 commission report cites an interesting, though imperfect, model for centralizing the intelligence community: the Department of Defense military command structure established in 1986. Authority was centralized in the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, as opposed to the different services, making it easier to carry out joint military operations. In the Pentagon, both the unified military command and the supporting military services fall under the executive authority of the secretary of Defense. This is not true of the proposed intelligence community organization, whose member agencies would also be reporting to other Cabinet members. Moreover, the proposal for a civilian-led unified joint command for counterterrorism works better for counterterrorism than for managing intelligence regarding other security issues that may arise in the Taiwan Straits, in the Palestine-Israel conflict or on the Indian subcontinent.In searching for a more effective way to assure effective and responsible intelligence, the commission made observations about the need for stronger congressional oversight that are very pertinent. But if the subtext is to make the NID more responsive to Congress, this has a significant disadvantage -- especially if, as some members of Congress have suggested, the director serves for a fixed term. The president should have complete authority over intelligence (as he or she does for defense) and the NID would be responsible for carrying out the president's wishes.My own experience is that cabinet-level status does not make any difference to the role or influence of the director of central intelligence. Influence depends upon performance, and upon the reliance the president and the rest of the national security team places on him or her. The single most important criterion for success of a NID would be a close relationship with the president -- especially if the NID's authority is limited. The core question is how much executive authority the NID should have to accomplish the very demanding and needed functions set out by the commission.John Deutch, director of central intelligence from 1995 to 1996 and deputy secretary of defense from 1994 to 1995, is an Institute Professor at MIT.© 2004
The Washington Post Company------------------- Robert C. McFarlane------
washingtonpost.com Robert C. McFarlane Sunday, August 1, 2004; Page B04
Over the past 30 years, through abuse, neglect and poor leadership, the CIA has slowly ground to a virtual halt. More broadly, the so-called intelligence "community" -- structurally dysfunctional and lacking effective oversight -- essentially failed in its analyses of the two salient threats of the late 20th century: the Soviet Union and radical Islam. The Sept. 11 commission's proposed overhaul would go far toward restoring its effectiveness.At present, the six peer agencies (CIA, DIA, NSA, INR, FBI and National Reconnaissance Office) are dominated by one -- the CIA. Since all intelligence is filtered through the CIA, this creates an inevitable bias in what is presented to the president and diminishes the prospect that sound, though differing, judgments will be heard. The goal of the commission's recommendations is to make the bureaucracy functional by removing it from the control of one of its members and relying on the new national intelligence director's staff to oversee the production of objective, integrated intelligence.I see no reason for concern that this restructuring could distance the president even further from dissenting intelligence voices. It would be far less threatening for a lone dissenter to approach the president's staff directly than to have to risk first going through a CIA filter to make his or her point.In addition, as it would be unfettered by agency loyalty and bias, the new staff could have a dramatic impact on what I call "inertial budgeting" -- the practice of funding systems and programs this year because we did it last year -- and instead could make it possible to focus resources on new priorities or to exploit new technologies in a more timely way.The military's unified command structure, which has proven so effective in bringing the four uniformed services into a cooperative working relationship, is a sound model for the new director's office. A superior NID staff could be created by careful recruiting of experienced professionals from within and outside government. And giving staff members separate career status would insulate them against special pleading from their former "parent" agency.Giving the new director a fixed term that overlaps administrations, as suggested by some in Congress, is the right way to go to avoid the post's becoming politicized. The challenge lies in selecting a nonpartisan, experienced individual, but there's a solid cohort of candidates to choose from, including such professionals as John Lehman, 9/11 commission member and former Navy secretary; Marine Gen. Jim Jones, NATO's top military commander; retired Adm. Dennis Blair, former commander of all U.S. forces in the Pacific; Jim Woolsey, former director of central intelligence; and former ambassador David Miller, to name a few.Do I think that this arrangement risks placing more power over intelligence gathering in the national intelligence director's hands than in the president's? No. Clearly, the director would receive tasking from -- and be accountable to -- the president.Robert C. McFarlane, national security adviser to President Ronald Reagan from 1983 to 1985, now chairs an energy development firm in Washington.© 2004
The Washington Post Company------------------Phyllis Oakely-------
washingtonpost.com Phyllis Oakley Sunday, August 1, 2004; Page B05
You can't talk about a national intelligence director, or intelligence czar, without understanding the structure beneath such a job or where the money for intelligence goes. In my experience in government, people pay attention only to people who control resources with real, not nominal, authority.Our national intelligence structure was set up to be competitive -- to encourage independent analysis from different agencies in hopes such competition produces better judgments about how to act on the intelligence we have. So, for example, the work of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) would compete with the CIA's or Defense Intelligence Agency's.Professionals from each agency would note differences in analysis and, by investigating and resolving them, come to a better understanding. When they are not worked out, differences must be highlighted and explained, all the way to the very top, and not papered over. With an intelligence czar and a unified intelligence center, the system would lose the competitiveness that's been an important element of its successes until now.Not everything about the present situation is bad. On the question of whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, INR did better than everyone else. It's just that no one listened. It seems to me that whatever structure is set up, the principle of competitive analysis, as well as a system in which people can argue and disagree, needs to be preserved. And those people need to be heard by the national security adviser or the president.The relationship between an intelligence czar and a president needs to be a personal one. Look at President Bill Clinton's first CIA director, James Woolsey. He never saw Clinton, which made it difficult for intelligence to inform policy.It may seem paradoxical, but the only thing we need as much as competitiveness among agencies is coordination, especially if we go along with the commission plan to maintain separate agencies. The 9/11 commission's report made it clear that coordination was strikingly lacking three years ago, and that was at the root of our intelligence failure. For example: Before Sept. 11, 2001, the CIA had information about some of the hijackers, but they weren't on the Immigration and Naturalization Service watch list for visas.Having a joint coordination center might have helped, but having an overarching czar wouldn't have solved that problem. If the national intelligence director is a member of the Cabinet and has all sorts of other responsibilities, he's not going to have time to run the center. Moreover, the real coordination isn't going to come from the top -- it has to be encouraged at a lower level, among analysts.All these things need to be thought about -- and urgently. But there ought to be real discussion about how any reconfigured intelligence structure would work. The thought that the president is just going to adopt all these things -- especially in an election year -- is just wacky. You have to look at the total intelligence structure before you can say yea or nay.Phyllis Oakley, former assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research, spent a quarter century in the U.S. Foreign Service.© 2004
The Washington Post Company----------------William E. Odom------
washingtonpost.com William E. Odom Sunday, August 1, 2004; Page B05
No organizational design will compensate for incompetent incumbents, but some designs prevent competent incumbents from performing well. The 9/11 commission's design for a new national intelligence director (NID) is sure to accomplish the latter. There is already a layer of bureaucracy above the CIA, NSA, DIA and other intelligence agencies, and it consists of the Community Management Staff and the National Intelligence Council. It simply has not been used effectively because the director of central intelligence is double-hatted -- that is, he is both CIA director and coordinator of the nation's intelligence agencies. Creating a NID with three deputies -- for homeland security, domestic intelligence and foreign intelligence -- would make things much worse. It would assure turf battles and prevent effective budget management.Several senators have endorsed a fixed term for the NID, saying this would prevent the post from being politicized. It's a bad idea. The FBI director's term is fixed, and more often than not, this arrangement has fostered bad relations between the FBI director and the president. It would create worse ones for a NID. There is no way to depoliticize the role of the president's intelligence chief. It is a desirable aspiration, but intelligence is just as political as policymaking and military operations.The popular notion that apolitical intelligence will prevent bad policies is an illusion. Intelligence chiefs can be no more effective than their political leaders or military commanders allow them to be or demand that they be. The intelligence failures surrounding the 9/11 attacks and in Iraq are primarily political failures. Effective leaders do not tolerate inadequate intelligence performance or leave it to commissions to fix intelligence problems.The following historical anecdote may be instructive:In late 1944, as the German Wehrmacht prepared to launch its last counteroffensive at the Battle of the Bulge, several pieces of intelligence suggested it was coming. The top American generals couldn't agree on the value of the intelligence. Montgomery and his obedient intelligence officer (known as his G-2) stubbornly rejected the facts; Bradley and his G-2 remained skeptical and passive. Eisenhower and his G-2 were somewhat quicker to sense the danger but slower than Patton, whose G-2 saw it coming several weeks beforehand, prompting Patton to get his divisions ready to meet the offensive.So four commanders with essentially the same intelligence turned in different performances. Though slightly disadvantaged by being at a lower echelon than all the others, Patton was far ahead of them in his appreciation of the impending assault.In writing up this case study, Harold Deutsch, a military historian in World War II, showed how the personalities of these commanders intimidated their G-2s, discouraging them from emphasizing unpleasant findings or pursuing other lines of analysis. In his words, "Whether the commanding general was on the correct or wrong track, therefore, the G-2 was likely to be right there with him. Perhaps the fine performance of Gustave Koch [Patton's G-2] was largely due to being lucky in his boss."When we ask how to improve the intelligence community's performance, we must recognize that it cannot be much better than the performance of the policymakers and commanders who own it.William E. Odom, director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.© 2004
The Washington Post Company------------------------------- John J. Devine -------
washingtonpost.com John J. Devine A Heady Is Herey Sunday, August 1, 2004; Page B05
The 9/11 commission served a very useful purpose in laying out the events and circumstances surrounding this horrific terrorist attack. Unfortunately and unintentionally, its recommendations regarding the intelligence community -- and specifically the CIA -- are potentially destructive.Because of the deep emotions about 9/11, the commission's findings are being treated as almost sacrosanct. Yet we should not allow ourselves to be stampeded into adopting these recommendations for short-term political expediency. We can't afford it. The security risks associated with dismantling the CIA are just too great, and this is the likely end result of the commission's principal recommendations.The creation of a national intelligence director (NID) and the removal of the counterterrorism mission from the CIA would leave the agency a demoralized shell. This would very likely not only lead to a major exodus of talented personnel, but to a failure to attract America's best and brightest, who are needed more than ever. This surely is not the commission's intent. The establishment of a national intelligence director and the national counterterrorism center (NCTC) would add a cumbersome bureaucracy without improving performance on the core issue -- the collection of very hard to obtain intelligence on the plans and intentions of terrorists. Without this information, all the restructuring in the world won't help. Nor would it add to the capacity to attack and destroy these groups before they attack us again. A counterterrorism center that reports to the new national intelligence director and is not under the CIA director's full control could only lead to confusion and internecine feuding. Moreover, separating operational planning and execution, as proposed in the report, would inevitably lead to unrealistic planning and lukewarm execution.There is no argument that the intelligence process should be consolidated and streamlined but this could and should be done within the existing CIA structure. Counterintuitive as it may seem in the aftermath of the commission and the Senate intelligence committee reports, the CIA needs to be strengthened. It needs a major infusion of resources and talent in order to get the job done. Just how under-resourced it has been is only now becoming clear, even to those of us who have worked in the intelligence business for most of our lives. Its overseas component alone should be several times larger than it is today. Surely, the problems that have recently been identified need to be corrected, but not this way. Why create a new position similar to the director of central intelligence (DCI)? It is redundant. Instead the DCI should be given the broad authority to direct the priorities and budgets of the other agencies in the intelligence community. Likewise, why create a NCTC when we are well along in the process of creating a multi-agency terrorism center called the Terrorist Threat Integration Center? The TTIC is the right road map for the future and should operate under the full control of the DCI.Embedded in the commission's recommendations are other very problematic suggestions, such as removing the CIA's paramilitary responsibility for covert action and transferring it to the Pentagon. This will not work. Let's ask ourselves whether the Soviets would have been driven out of Afghanistan or the Taliban toppled if we had to do this without the CIA's covert paramilitary capability. This transfer would greatly reduce the speed with which we can act and would surely lead to diplomatic, legal and political problems in the countries where we try to exercise this capability. No matter how you slice it, this activity is covert and if it is left to the Pentagon, the Defense Department would have to undergo the same Congressional oversight that the CIA does today. This is something that the Pentagon has not rushed to embrace in the past.The Sept. 11 commission also addresses the "need to share" and the "need to know" principles. While the emphasis, and rightfully so, is now on how to broaden the information sharing among all relevant government entities, we should not lose sight of the importance of protecting sources. Access to certain sensitive data must be limited to only those who need the data to get their jobs done. The cost of losing a communication system or a person who has penetrated a hard intelligence target can be incalculable in dollar, intelligence and human terms. Before broadening the information flow, we must weigh this risk.It is also worth remembering where the staff would come from to support the new national intelligence director. It would come from the CIA and other intelligence agencies, further reducing their workforces. In addition, whole new staffs would have to be created in all the agencies to respond to the NID and to provide the necessary tailored data. The amount of unnecessary bureaucratic paperwork and oversight should not be underestimated. After all, the NID would not produce any intelligence. His or her office would only be a consumer.The politicization of information threatens to corrupt policy choices and violates intelligence tradecraft. The CIA's value rests on the integrity of its reporting. Resisting all forms of politicization is central to effective analysis and collection. It is a question of the agency's culture, not its structure. Historically this resistance has engendered problems between the president and the DCI -- as it should. It is the job of the agency to provide the president with impartial intelligence so that he can make policy decisions for our country.John J. Devine, former CIA associate director of operations, spent 32 years with the agency. He served as both acting and associate director of operations from 1993 to 1995. Earlier, he headed the agency's counter-narcotics center and its Afghan task force during the Soviet war in Afghanistan.© 2004
The Washington Post Company------------- Stansfield Turner --------
From the Top . . .Stansfield Turner Sunday, August 1, 2004; Page B01
The 9/11 commission's recommendations don't create a new intelligence structure. Mostly, they repackage what we have now. For instance, the recommended position of national intelligence director (NDI) already exists. It is the director of Central Intelligence (DCI) created by the National Security Act of 1947, with responsibility for coordinating the nation's 15 intelligence agencies. The DCI today has a staff just for this coordinating function. We don't need a new layer of bureaucracy. What we do need is a review of what authority a coordinator of intelligence should have, whether we call him or her an NID or a DCI.The commission recommendation of separating the NID/DCI from the job of heading the CIA is a fine idea. The two jobs are more than one person should try to handle. And there is a conflict of interest in running one of the agencies that's being coordinated.A serious problem today, which the commission addresses nicely, is that the 1947 law did not give the DCI sufficient authority to ensure adequate exchange of data among the agencies. It would take only an executive order from the president to give the DCI, or a new NID, the authority to set the standards for classifying secret intelligence materials. Today, each of the heads of the 15 agencies can create classification categories so as to exclude other agencies from their data. Some intelligence does deserve special treatment. But that should be decided by the NID/DCI, who has the national interest in view, not someone with an agency's perspective.The same presidential executive order could give the NID the authority to set the budgets for all 15 agencies, to reallocate funds and people among them, and to set priorities for both collecting and analyzing intelligence, thus implementing the intent of the 1947 law. President Jimmy Carter gave me, as his DCI, that authority. This enabled a far greater degree of coordination than we have today.Should a new NID be given a fixed term -- not to coincide with the president's -- to help insulate him or her from political pressures to twist the intelligence? Absolutely not. Why? First, because one responsibility of the chief of intelligence is to be intelligence adviser to the president. A harmonious working relationship between the two is essential. In the past, a number of DCIs have resigned and a number of others have been fired just because of a lack of rapport with the president. Second, because the NID/DCI's authority derives in good measure from the support he or she receives from the president, especially vis-à-vis the more powerful secretaries of defense and state. A close relationship with the president is a NID/DCI's lifeblood.Finally and most importantly, a fixed term is a bad idea because we shouldn't overreact to the accusation of the day -- that is, the assertion that the Bush administration may have pressured DCI George Tenet and his people to slant the intelligence on Iraq. The idea behind a fixed term is to make the NID more independent, rather than serving at the pleasure of the current president. Thirty years ago, we reacted in exactly the opposite direction, establishing congressional and executive controls to rein in powerful DCIs and prevent them from overstepping legal and ethical bounds, as they were accused of doing in the 1950s and 1960s.Let's not now reinvite this problem of the past in dealing with a problem of today. All that is needed is to select as NIDs people who will stand up to improper pressures. We also have two congressional committees on intelligence whose job it should be to blow whistles at the slightest sign that the intelligence process is being politicized.Stansfield Turner, director of central intelligence from 1977 to 1981, is on the faculty of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland.© 2004
The Washington Post Company--A Novel Approach----------washingtonpost.com
A Novel ApproachBy Philip KennicottSunday, August 1, 2004; Page B01
In March 1966, after the California Governor's Commission on the Los Angeles Riots released its report, the critic Elizabeth Hardwick wrote a short, despairing essay called "After Watts." She called the whole examination an empty exercise, a ritual of little purpose or consequence. "They investigate, they study, they interview, and at last, they recommend," she wrote. "Society is calmed, and not so much by what is found in the study as by the display of official energy."In writing yet another report, about yet another tragedy and yet more failures of governance, the authors of the 9/11 Commission Report have made a vigorous effort to leave the public anything but calm. And far from retiring after a palliative display of "official energy," the 10 bipartisan commissioners have expressed their determination to be heard beyond the Beltway and, if asked, to continue work past the scheduled date for their dissolution on Aug. 26. They have written a report that upends the usual expectations -- about language, rhetoric and purpose -- of blue-ribbon prose.The report's sentences are lean and simple, all the more so as the anonymous authors approach pivotal moments of decision, failure or tragedy. The tone is restrained. A carefully chosen adjective here or there gives color, but there is nothing baroque. The dominant tone is wise and sad, not angry. Rhetorically, the knowing shake of the head trumps the angry clench of the fist. If reviewers blurbed this book, the key word they'd use would be "unflinching."This writing style is essentially that of America's busy industry of personal confessional. It is the tone of the trauma memoirist, the daughter writing about Daddy's alcoholism, the husband about the car accident that killed his children and left him in a wheelchair, the survivor about incest or abuse hidden under a cloak of shame and secrecy. It is the ultra-spare, purposely unemotional -- yet quietly seething -- language of American pain. The style is a cliché now, at least among memoirists. But adapted for a government document, a 567-page litany of American political and security failure, it works with bracing power. The 9/11 Commission Report is a collective memoir, and the language of memoir has exorcised the cant from its pages."Tuesday, September 11, 2001, dawned temperate and nearly cloudless in the eastern United States," begins the report. "Millions of men and women readied themselves for work."With those words, the report's authors invoke collective memory -- who can't remember the azure depth of that perfectly clear sky three years ago? -- and put all of America ("millions of men and women") front and center in the drama. Official boards of inquiry love details, lots of dry details; but these details capture a mood, a sense of calm vulnerability. The 1912 Senate committee report on the sinking of the Titanic began by recording who owned the boat; the 1942 presidential commission report on the Pearl Harbor bombing opened with the dry particulars of the attack and then told its readers, "The Territory of Hawaii comprises the group of islands known as the Hawaiian Islands." The 9/11 Commission Report begins like an idyll, with perhaps the exact words that many of us, were we writing our own memories of the day, would choose. And it continues for hundreds of pages to be "compulsively readable," as reviewers say of books that surprise them by being more interesting than they had expected.Listen to the language as the authors build their case about security failures: "In sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat. They did not have direction and did not have a plan to institute. The borders were not hardened. Transportation systems were not fortified. Electronic surveillance was not targeted against a domestic threat. State and local law enforcement were not marshaled to augment the FBI's efforts. The public was not warned."This is not just a list of mistakes. It is an insistent repetition of a basic sentence structure, driving home the word "not" until the reader can only wince when it is used for the last time: "The public was not warned." The language could be simpler, but not by much, which is remarkable in a government document written by committee."Imagination is not a gift usually associated with bureaucracies," says the report, in a passage devoted to the government's inability to foresee the scope and fury of the attack. Clear writing is not a gift one associates with bureaucracies either, which suggests that an extraordinary effort has been made to gain a wide, popular audience for this document. All indications are that the authors have been successful. The book came out in paperback with a better than bland cover that shows well on the tables and in the windows of bookstores. Sales are brisk. It has hit No. 1 on the Amazon.com sales rank. In New York, the Daily News ran on its July 23 cover a picture of the book in a lurid red box with the words "Act Now!" in huge type. Thus, the book has status as a visual icon as well; simply hold the book and point toward Washington and that, in itself, is argument against government torpor.In her essay on the Watts report, Hardwick lamented the way language created distance, and how this distance reflected the divide between black and white America. The 9/11 report seems determined to remain open, and transparent. There is little of the defensive, closing-off of inquiry that one finds in the inert language of the Pearl Harbor commission ("it is not within our province," "it [can] have no direct bearing on the execution of the mandate appointing this commission," "we have made no detailed findings on the subject . . ."). And the structure of the report, alternating moment-by-moment narrative with chapters on history and background, reflects a desire to keep things open, and moving, as well.Chapter 1, "We Have Some Planes," recounts the events of Sept. 11, 2001, but ends with a fax, from 1998, in which Osama bin Laden declares war on the United States. It leaves the reader hanging by introducing the villain, and noting the first of many missed and ominous signals: "The fax had been sent from thousands of miles away by the followers of a Saudi exile gathered in one of the most remote and impoverished countries on earth." Chapter 7, "The Attack Looms," ends on Sept. 10: "Now 19 men waited in nondescript hotel rooms to board four flights the next morning."Ending a chapter with a dramatic ellipsis is a technique that belongs as much to pulp fiction as to any other form, including memoir. But again and again the language in this report returns to the memoirist's tone of tempered sadness. "Faced with insufferable heat, smoke, and fire, and with no prospect for relief, some jumped or fell from the building," reads a passage in Chapter 9. This sentence pains us not just because the events it describes are painful. It follows a logical emotional progression: insufferable pain, no hope, then death. That moment, when people hurled their bodies off the World Trade Center, into the void, is perhaps the most horrifying and haunting image of that horrifying day. When they come to one of the most dreaded moments in this story, the authors choose simplicity, a single sentence that condenses all the essential facts and balances them with transparent syntax.Government-appointed panels concern themselves almost exclusively with facts, responsibility and recommendations. Memoirists are primarily concerned with recollection and the problems of memory. And yet, in the middle of this endless parade of facts are sentences that remind one more of a solitary writer pondering the problem of how a single moment can forever alter our ability to see the past as once we saw it. "Hindsight can sometimes see the past clearly -- with 20/20 vision," the authors write. "But the path of what happened is so brightly lit that it places everything else more deeply into shadow."This is not limpid prose, and it's intriguing that, when the report comes to the issue of blame, its language loses its simplicity and heads toward metaphor, and not a particularly clear one either. But it is a small lapse. Consider this sentence, from a different report, which struggles to express a similar thought about blame and hindsight: "He made a mistake, a very grievous mistake, but one in which, in face of the practice and of past experience, negligence cannot be said to have had any part; and in the absence of negligence it is, in my opinion, impossible to fix Captain Smith with blame." Thus the British investigation into the Titanic sinking absolved the boat's captain of responsibility for having steered the ship into iceberg-infested waters.The remarkable thing about the 9/11 Commission Report is how little of this nervous, grammatical obfuscation it contains. Someone, in the crafting of this long tome, seems aware of the danger of language that hides, rather than reveals. The hijackers, we learn, developed codes to speak openly of their plans. "They discussed targets in coded language, pretending to be students discussing various fields of study: 'architecture' referred to the World Trade Center, 'arts' the Pentagon, 'law' the Capitol, and 'politics' the White House." And when referring to the date, they "used a riddle" -- 9/11, or 11/9 in the form the rest of the world uses, was called "two branches, a slash and a lollipop."Compare that with the report's demand that Americans, and their leaders, be precise in thinking and in terminology. Words laden with fear -- words that can be misused to manipulate fear -- don't clarify. "But the enemy is not just 'terrorism,' some generic evil," they write. "This vagueness blurs the strategy." Don't conflate categories, don't mix categories. "Islam is not the enemy. It is not synonymous with terror." Again, those short, spare sentences.Memoirs of tragic events, if well written, both recall the past and put the past behind the author. The writer must prove him or herself changed, in some way. A memoir that shows the author still caught in cycles of recrimination and pain is a memoir probably best left in the author's desk drawer. The authors of the 9/11 Commission Report seem aware of that too, but they don't have the luxury of documenting change or growth in our national security policies. In that sense, it is half a memoir. The rest is left to us
Author's e-mail:kennicottp@washpost.com
Philip Kennicott is The Post's culture critic.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Saturday, July 31, 2004
See Y'All in New York
CAMPAIGN 2004
See Y'All in New York
Why I skipped the Boston convention.
BY ZELL MILLER
Saturday, July 31, 2004 12:01 a.m.
Twelve years ago, I delivered one of the keynote addresses on the first night at the Democratic National Convention in New York. It was a stinging rebuke of the administration of George H.W. Bush and a ringing endorsement of Bill Clinton. This summer I'll again be speaking in New York, but it will be to the Republican Convention that renominates George W. Bush.
Many have asked how I could have come so far in just over a decade. Frankly, I don't think I've changed much at all. At 72, I don't feel much need to change my opinions. Instead, the reason I didn't attend the Democratic Convention in Boston is that I barely recognize my party anymore. Most of its leaders--including our nominee, John Kerry--don't hold the same beliefs that have motivated my career in public service.
In 1992, I spoke of the opportunity and hope that allowed me, the son of a single mother growing up in the North Georgia mountains, to become my state's governor. And I attributed much of my success to the great Democratic presidents of years gone by--FDR (a hallowed man in my home), Truman and JFK. The link these men shared was a commitment to helping Americans born into any condition rise to achieve whatever goal they set for themselves.
I spoke of Americans who were "tired of paying more in taxes and getting less in services." I excoriated Republicans who "dealt in cynicism and skepticism." I accused them of mastering "the art of division and diversion." And I praised Bill Clinton as a moderate Democrat "who has the courage to tell some of those liberals who think welfare should continue forever, and some of those conservatives who think there should be no welfare at all, that they're both wrong."
Bill Clinton did deliver on welfare reform, after a lot of prodding from the Republicans who took hold of Congress in 1995. But much of the rest of the promise I saw in his candidacy withered during his two terms in office.
Today, it's the Democratic Party that has mastered the art of division and diversion. To run for president as a Democrat these days you have to go from interest group to interest group, cap in hand, asking for the support of liberal kingmakers. Mr. Kerry is no different. After Hollywood elites profaned the president, he didn't have the courage to put them in their place. Instead, he validated their remarks, claiming that they represent "the heart and soul of America."
No longer the party of hope, today's Democratic Party has become Mr. Kerry's many mansions of cynicism and skepticism. As our economy continues to get better and businesses add jobs, Mr. Kerry's going around America trying to convince people that the roof is about to cave in. He talks about "the misery index" and the Depression. What does he know about either?
And when it comes to taxes and services, you'd be pressed to find anyone more opposed to the interests of middle-class Americans than John Kerry. Except maybe John Edwards. Both voted against tax relief for married couples, tax relief for families with children, and tax relief for small businesses. Now Mr. Kerry wants to raise taxes on hundreds of thousands of small-business owners and millions of individuals. He claims to be for working people, but I don't understand how small businesses can create jobs if they've got to send more money to Washington instead of keeping it to hire workers.
Worst of all, Sens. Kerry and Edwards have not kept faith with the men and women who are fighting the war on terror--most of whom come from small towns and middle-class families all over America. While Mr. Bush has stood by our troops every step of the way, Messrs. Kerry and Edwards voted to send our troops to war and then voted against the money to give them supplies and equipment--not to mention better benefits for their families. And recently Mr. Kerry even said he's proud of that vote. Proud to abandon our troops when they're out in the field? I can hear Harry Truman cussing from his grave.
I still believe in hope and opportunity and, when it comes right down to it, Mr. Bush is the man who represents hope and opportunity. Hope for a safer world. And opportunity for Americans to work hard, keep more of the money they earn, and send their kids to good schools. All the speeches we heard this week weren't able to hide the truth of what today's Democratic Party has become: an enclave of elites paying lip service to middle-class values. Americans looking for a president who understands their struggles and their dreams should tune in next month, when we celebrate the leadership of George W. Bush.
Mr. Miller is a Democratic senator from Georgia.
See Y'All in New York
Why I skipped the Boston convention.
BY ZELL MILLER
Saturday, July 31, 2004 12:01 a.m.
Twelve years ago, I delivered one of the keynote addresses on the first night at the Democratic National Convention in New York. It was a stinging rebuke of the administration of George H.W. Bush and a ringing endorsement of Bill Clinton. This summer I'll again be speaking in New York, but it will be to the Republican Convention that renominates George W. Bush.
Many have asked how I could have come so far in just over a decade. Frankly, I don't think I've changed much at all. At 72, I don't feel much need to change my opinions. Instead, the reason I didn't attend the Democratic Convention in Boston is that I barely recognize my party anymore. Most of its leaders--including our nominee, John Kerry--don't hold the same beliefs that have motivated my career in public service.
In 1992, I spoke of the opportunity and hope that allowed me, the son of a single mother growing up in the North Georgia mountains, to become my state's governor. And I attributed much of my success to the great Democratic presidents of years gone by--FDR (a hallowed man in my home), Truman and JFK. The link these men shared was a commitment to helping Americans born into any condition rise to achieve whatever goal they set for themselves.
I spoke of Americans who were "tired of paying more in taxes and getting less in services." I excoriated Republicans who "dealt in cynicism and skepticism." I accused them of mastering "the art of division and diversion." And I praised Bill Clinton as a moderate Democrat "who has the courage to tell some of those liberals who think welfare should continue forever, and some of those conservatives who think there should be no welfare at all, that they're both wrong."
Bill Clinton did deliver on welfare reform, after a lot of prodding from the Republicans who took hold of Congress in 1995. But much of the rest of the promise I saw in his candidacy withered during his two terms in office.
Today, it's the Democratic Party that has mastered the art of division and diversion. To run for president as a Democrat these days you have to go from interest group to interest group, cap in hand, asking for the support of liberal kingmakers. Mr. Kerry is no different. After Hollywood elites profaned the president, he didn't have the courage to put them in their place. Instead, he validated their remarks, claiming that they represent "the heart and soul of America."
No longer the party of hope, today's Democratic Party has become Mr. Kerry's many mansions of cynicism and skepticism. As our economy continues to get better and businesses add jobs, Mr. Kerry's going around America trying to convince people that the roof is about to cave in. He talks about "the misery index" and the Depression. What does he know about either?
And when it comes to taxes and services, you'd be pressed to find anyone more opposed to the interests of middle-class Americans than John Kerry. Except maybe John Edwards. Both voted against tax relief for married couples, tax relief for families with children, and tax relief for small businesses. Now Mr. Kerry wants to raise taxes on hundreds of thousands of small-business owners and millions of individuals. He claims to be for working people, but I don't understand how small businesses can create jobs if they've got to send more money to Washington instead of keeping it to hire workers.
Worst of all, Sens. Kerry and Edwards have not kept faith with the men and women who are fighting the war on terror--most of whom come from small towns and middle-class families all over America. While Mr. Bush has stood by our troops every step of the way, Messrs. Kerry and Edwards voted to send our troops to war and then voted against the money to give them supplies and equipment--not to mention better benefits for their families. And recently Mr. Kerry even said he's proud of that vote. Proud to abandon our troops when they're out in the field? I can hear Harry Truman cussing from his grave.
I still believe in hope and opportunity and, when it comes right down to it, Mr. Bush is the man who represents hope and opportunity. Hope for a safer world. And opportunity for Americans to work hard, keep more of the money they earn, and send their kids to good schools. All the speeches we heard this week weren't able to hide the truth of what today's Democratic Party has become: an enclave of elites paying lip service to middle-class values. Americans looking for a president who understands their struggles and their dreams should tune in next month, when we celebrate the leadership of George W. Bush.
Mr. Miller is a Democratic senator from Georgia.
The Biggest Liar of Them All
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.comJuly 30, 2004
Now we can understand why Democrats spent the last year attacking thePresident as someone who lied to take America into an unnecessary war anddestroy brave young American lives for his corporate friends in Texas. Theydid it to disarm and anesthetize us, to deconstruct the very idea of whattruth is or what a fact is or what "is" is -- and prepare us for the mostshameless charade in political memory, the phoniest convention for thephoniest party ever to mount an American electoral stage.In Boston the Democrats -- the party of Al Sharpton, Jimmy Carter, TeddyKennedy and Michael Moore -- presented themselves as the party of patriotismand military glory and American military strength, and John Kerry as a manwhose life has been one long preparation to be commander-in-chief. "I amJohn Kerry," he saluted his audience to begin his convention speech,"reporting for duty."
Pardon me while I hurl. This is a man who came backfrom Vietnam to stab not only his country but his comrades-in-arms in theback. This is a man who to this very day has an honored place in theCommunist enemy's "War Crimes Museum" -- that's American war crimes. This isa party and a wannabe commander in chief that has clamored and voted tooppose America's wars in Vietnam, the Persian Gulf and in Iraq. This is aparty and a commander in chief that lent comfort and aid to Communistdictators in Central America during the last years of the Cold War andnearly brought the Reagan presidency down for attempting to oppose theCommunist tide.This is a man and a party that voted to cut America's military and itsintelligence services year after year, a man and a party who refused toinstitute the security measures that would have prevented 9/11. And this is a man and a party that has sabotaged the war on terror since the day Baghdadwas liberated, that has embraced the reprehensible traitor Michael Moore,and the antiwar left of the Dean campaign, that has spread monstrous liesabout its commander in chief and in doing so undermined the nation'scredibility and defenses.
If another terrorist state were to become athreatening nuclear force (Iran comes immediately to mind) what Americanpresident can now face that enemy down with a credible military threat?This is a party that from the beginning to the end of its conventionpretended to be what it is not. And that is because it fears that Americanpeople already know what it is.
FrontPageMagazine.comJuly 30, 2004
Now we can understand why Democrats spent the last year attacking thePresident as someone who lied to take America into an unnecessary war anddestroy brave young American lives for his corporate friends in Texas. Theydid it to disarm and anesthetize us, to deconstruct the very idea of whattruth is or what a fact is or what "is" is -- and prepare us for the mostshameless charade in political memory, the phoniest convention for thephoniest party ever to mount an American electoral stage.In Boston the Democrats -- the party of Al Sharpton, Jimmy Carter, TeddyKennedy and Michael Moore -- presented themselves as the party of patriotismand military glory and American military strength, and John Kerry as a manwhose life has been one long preparation to be commander-in-chief. "I amJohn Kerry," he saluted his audience to begin his convention speech,"reporting for duty."
Pardon me while I hurl. This is a man who came backfrom Vietnam to stab not only his country but his comrades-in-arms in theback. This is a man who to this very day has an honored place in theCommunist enemy's "War Crimes Museum" -- that's American war crimes. This isa party and a wannabe commander in chief that has clamored and voted tooppose America's wars in Vietnam, the Persian Gulf and in Iraq. This is aparty and a commander in chief that lent comfort and aid to Communistdictators in Central America during the last years of the Cold War andnearly brought the Reagan presidency down for attempting to oppose theCommunist tide.This is a man and a party that voted to cut America's military and itsintelligence services year after year, a man and a party who refused toinstitute the security measures that would have prevented 9/11. And this is a man and a party that has sabotaged the war on terror since the day Baghdadwas liberated, that has embraced the reprehensible traitor Michael Moore,and the antiwar left of the Dean campaign, that has spread monstrous liesabout its commander in chief and in doing so undermined the nation'scredibility and defenses.
If another terrorist state were to become athreatening nuclear force (Iran comes immediately to mind) what Americanpresident can now face that enemy down with a credible military threat?This is a party that from the beginning to the end of its conventionpretended to be what it is not. And that is because it fears that Americanpeople already know what it is.
Friday, July 30, 2004
Why The Dems Will Lose .....
E-mail AuthorAuthor ArchiveSend to a FriendPrint Version
July 30, 2004, 8:29 a.m.Why the Dems Will LoseAnd why they’ll be disconsolate.
You know how Democrats hate Bush now? How will they hate him when they lose to him on November 2 by three or four percentage points?
One of the political commentators I admire most for his astuteness said yesterday that the paroxysm of hatred the Democrats have been indulging for the last six months is the worst American political delusion he has seen in his entire life.
What will it be like — if after all this hatred, all this effort, all those millions upon millions of dollars spent to express disdain, contempt, and hate — Bush wins again, flashes a victory symbol over his head, grins, strides around shaking hands, glows with exuberance and radiance?
For Democrats, losing is much worse than for Republicans. For Democrats, the purpose of democracy is to milk government for ever more abundant benefits. Republicans in principle believe in limited government, and thus in a certain way they do even better out of power than when they must exercise it. Democrats without power suffer much more. Democrats go listless, purposeless.
In a minority, Democrats are fairly useless creatures. In victory, they cultivate grand visions of benefits to be shaken from government largesse; defeat, however, freezes the core of their being. Democratic defeat defies the natural order. For them, history halts. What had been an onward rushing tide swirls round and round, becoming still.So loss at any time (as in 2000) is almost inadmissible by Democrats. But a loss in 2004, particularly a solid loss, will be for them a disaster beyond imagination. Such recriminations there will be. Some will blame the "centrism" of the Kerry team, and the much-resented repression of the Left. Some will come to see the isolation in which the widespread paroxysms of hatred and contempt for George Bush blindly thrust them. Some will see that the core ideologies of the Left are faultily drawn — in economics, their attraction to a kind of governmental centralization, and their antipathy to capitalism, the market, corporations, and job creators. They claim to love employees while hating their employers, a self-defeating cycle. In matters of culture, others will see that the left-wing's sexual ethic and religious sensibility are too far out of tune with the American people. Nonetheless, one can predict that both in economics and in culture, others will try to drive the party more leftward still.
In any case, it would be wise to get ready for the coming cataclysm.In 2004, I see six reasons why the Democratic goose is cooked: 1. No one — neither his colleagues nor his wife nor his supporters nor he himself — has anything good to say about John Kerry except that he served bravely in Vietnam. The nearly 30 years since then have generated few boasts on his part, few commendations from others, few successes anyone can seem to remember. 2. The Democratic elite sitting in convention cannot present themselves as they are to the American people, but must stifle their deepest feelings, be silent about their most passionate aims, and hide their turbulent loathing of George Bush Republicans (lest it frighten independents with its ferocity). The Democratic elite is saying as little as possible about same-sex marriage. And guns. And very little about abortion. And not a word about total withdrawal of American troops from Iraq — quite the opposite. Democratic elites do not want the people to know what they really think. On that ground, they fear they will lose. 3. Democrats must hide from the public what they truly think about evangelicals, fundamentalists, and Catholics. They express these thoughts mostly among themselves. 4. John Kerry looks sillier in the pale blue NASA rabbit suit than Michael Dukakis did in a tank. 5. The months of April, May, and June were so heavy with bad news for George Bush — the huge Sorosian expenditures on anti-Bush ads came at him in torrents — and still he held even with Kerry in the polls. It is hard not to believe that there will be at least a slight change in the roaring winds. When it comes (and the change is already underway), it is bound to push Bush's sails steadily ahead as the weeks roll on. 6. The worst lies told by the Democrats about Bush — those of Joe Wilson, Michael Moore, and others, saying that Bush lied about Iraq — have already been proven wrong by the 9/11 Commission (which was supposed to blow Bush out of the water just before the election, but ended up destroying his worst calumniators). These lies were also proven wrong by the British inquiry. Even the Kerry Convention in Boston ended up taking the Bush strategic line in Iraq, except for one thing: Kerry is wistful about the probability of persuading France and Germany to bear some burden on behalf of liberty in Iraq. Good luck! God knows, Bush and Colin Powell tried.Finally, there is the matter of faith, even of the sort Tom Paine showed in 1776. Paine was no Christian, but he did believe that God had created this vast and splendid universe in order to share His friendship with free women and free men, and for this reason the Creator put freedom at the core of things. Tom Paine had no tolerance for the Bible, and less for Biblical fundamentalists, but he was not so much an atheist, he wrote, as to believe that the Almighty Who made the universe for liberty would allow the cause of people willing to die for it to come to naught. Paine couldn't bring himself to believe that God would favor George III.
In that same spirit, I find it hard to believe that the Creator who gave us liberty will ignore President Bush's willingness to sacrifice his own presidency for the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq — their 50 million citizens, and perhaps their progeny for ages to come. A kind of cosmic justice (which does not always materialize, I recognize) calls for vindication. Especially when the president has been so unfairly calumniated by his foes, domestic and foreign.In accepting the nomination of his party Thursday night, John Kerry could not quite bring himself to give both the president and the volunteer military who performed so well some credit for this great and significant advance for human liberty. The theme of liberty in the Muslim world belongs to George Bush. It was he who named liberty the only real alternative to terrorism."With a firm reliance on Divine Providence," to cite our forebears once again, Bush has publicly held that one cannot fight terrorism merely by killing terrorists. One must provide an alternative of liberty, prosperity, and opportunity — one must labor to build free societies where they do not now exist. Liberty works. I think Bush will win because these are the truths Americans hold.
Bush believes these truths. At this moment, the Democrats (who used to believe them, nobly so) do not even see their relevance. Kerry spoke well about patriotism, the international leadership of America, and liberty — but he seems willfully blind to the relevance of these beautiful ideals to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terrorism. For such ideals and purposes some 900 young Americans of this generation have laid down their lives. They will be thanked by generations yet unborn.
So will their commander-in-chief.
— Michael Novak is the winner of the 1994 Templeton Prize for progress in religion and the George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute. Novak's own website is www.michaelnovak.net.
July 30, 2004, 8:29 a.m.Why the Dems Will LoseAnd why they’ll be disconsolate.
You know how Democrats hate Bush now? How will they hate him when they lose to him on November 2 by three or four percentage points?
One of the political commentators I admire most for his astuteness said yesterday that the paroxysm of hatred the Democrats have been indulging for the last six months is the worst American political delusion he has seen in his entire life.
What will it be like — if after all this hatred, all this effort, all those millions upon millions of dollars spent to express disdain, contempt, and hate — Bush wins again, flashes a victory symbol over his head, grins, strides around shaking hands, glows with exuberance and radiance?
For Democrats, losing is much worse than for Republicans. For Democrats, the purpose of democracy is to milk government for ever more abundant benefits. Republicans in principle believe in limited government, and thus in a certain way they do even better out of power than when they must exercise it. Democrats without power suffer much more. Democrats go listless, purposeless.
In a minority, Democrats are fairly useless creatures. In victory, they cultivate grand visions of benefits to be shaken from government largesse; defeat, however, freezes the core of their being. Democratic defeat defies the natural order. For them, history halts. What had been an onward rushing tide swirls round and round, becoming still.So loss at any time (as in 2000) is almost inadmissible by Democrats. But a loss in 2004, particularly a solid loss, will be for them a disaster beyond imagination. Such recriminations there will be. Some will blame the "centrism" of the Kerry team, and the much-resented repression of the Left. Some will come to see the isolation in which the widespread paroxysms of hatred and contempt for George Bush blindly thrust them. Some will see that the core ideologies of the Left are faultily drawn — in economics, their attraction to a kind of governmental centralization, and their antipathy to capitalism, the market, corporations, and job creators. They claim to love employees while hating their employers, a self-defeating cycle. In matters of culture, others will see that the left-wing's sexual ethic and religious sensibility are too far out of tune with the American people. Nonetheless, one can predict that both in economics and in culture, others will try to drive the party more leftward still.
In any case, it would be wise to get ready for the coming cataclysm.In 2004, I see six reasons why the Democratic goose is cooked: 1. No one — neither his colleagues nor his wife nor his supporters nor he himself — has anything good to say about John Kerry except that he served bravely in Vietnam. The nearly 30 years since then have generated few boasts on his part, few commendations from others, few successes anyone can seem to remember. 2. The Democratic elite sitting in convention cannot present themselves as they are to the American people, but must stifle their deepest feelings, be silent about their most passionate aims, and hide their turbulent loathing of George Bush Republicans (lest it frighten independents with its ferocity). The Democratic elite is saying as little as possible about same-sex marriage. And guns. And very little about abortion. And not a word about total withdrawal of American troops from Iraq — quite the opposite. Democratic elites do not want the people to know what they really think. On that ground, they fear they will lose. 3. Democrats must hide from the public what they truly think about evangelicals, fundamentalists, and Catholics. They express these thoughts mostly among themselves. 4. John Kerry looks sillier in the pale blue NASA rabbit suit than Michael Dukakis did in a tank. 5. The months of April, May, and June were so heavy with bad news for George Bush — the huge Sorosian expenditures on anti-Bush ads came at him in torrents — and still he held even with Kerry in the polls. It is hard not to believe that there will be at least a slight change in the roaring winds. When it comes (and the change is already underway), it is bound to push Bush's sails steadily ahead as the weeks roll on. 6. The worst lies told by the Democrats about Bush — those of Joe Wilson, Michael Moore, and others, saying that Bush lied about Iraq — have already been proven wrong by the 9/11 Commission (which was supposed to blow Bush out of the water just before the election, but ended up destroying his worst calumniators). These lies were also proven wrong by the British inquiry. Even the Kerry Convention in Boston ended up taking the Bush strategic line in Iraq, except for one thing: Kerry is wistful about the probability of persuading France and Germany to bear some burden on behalf of liberty in Iraq. Good luck! God knows, Bush and Colin Powell tried.Finally, there is the matter of faith, even of the sort Tom Paine showed in 1776. Paine was no Christian, but he did believe that God had created this vast and splendid universe in order to share His friendship with free women and free men, and for this reason the Creator put freedom at the core of things. Tom Paine had no tolerance for the Bible, and less for Biblical fundamentalists, but he was not so much an atheist, he wrote, as to believe that the Almighty Who made the universe for liberty would allow the cause of people willing to die for it to come to naught. Paine couldn't bring himself to believe that God would favor George III.
In that same spirit, I find it hard to believe that the Creator who gave us liberty will ignore President Bush's willingness to sacrifice his own presidency for the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq — their 50 million citizens, and perhaps their progeny for ages to come. A kind of cosmic justice (which does not always materialize, I recognize) calls for vindication. Especially when the president has been so unfairly calumniated by his foes, domestic and foreign.In accepting the nomination of his party Thursday night, John Kerry could not quite bring himself to give both the president and the volunteer military who performed so well some credit for this great and significant advance for human liberty. The theme of liberty in the Muslim world belongs to George Bush. It was he who named liberty the only real alternative to terrorism."With a firm reliance on Divine Providence," to cite our forebears once again, Bush has publicly held that one cannot fight terrorism merely by killing terrorists. One must provide an alternative of liberty, prosperity, and opportunity — one must labor to build free societies where they do not now exist. Liberty works. I think Bush will win because these are the truths Americans hold.
Bush believes these truths. At this moment, the Democrats (who used to believe them, nobly so) do not even see their relevance. Kerry spoke well about patriotism, the international leadership of America, and liberty — but he seems willfully blind to the relevance of these beautiful ideals to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terrorism. For such ideals and purposes some 900 young Americans of this generation have laid down their lives. They will be thanked by generations yet unborn.
So will their commander-in-chief.
— Michael Novak is the winner of the 1994 Templeton Prize for progress in religion and the George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute. Novak's own website is www.michaelnovak.net.
Kerry In Vietnam Disputed
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com Kerry's exploits in Vietnam are disputed in best seller
By Rowan ScarboroughTHE WASHINGTON TIMES Published July 30, 2004
Democrats capped Sen. John Kerry's presidential nomination last night by showing a Hollywood-produced movie of his life, featuring amateur film clips and testaments about his service in Vietnam as commander of a Navy river patrol boat. But a group of former sailors who served with Mr. Kerry are telling a different story. Rather than depicting Mr. Kerry as a war hero, they are quoted in a new book accusing him of exaggerating and falsifying his experiences. The group says that of 23 crew members photographed with Mr. Kerry more than 30 years ago in Vietnam, only one supports his presidential campaign. They will announce a nationwide campaign by "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" to tell the American public about what they say is Mr. Kerry's true war record.
The biographical movie shown last night, "A Remarkable Promise," shows "family and friends talking about the courage he has shown as a soldier and a veteran, the fights he has waged for middle-class values and the faith in family he has exhibited as a father and husband," the Kerry campaign said before its prime-time convention appearance. The film was produced by James Moll, a partner of director Steven Spielberg. The book, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," from Regnery Publishing, is written by John E. O'Neill. Mr. O'Neill served in Vietnam at the same time as Mr. Kerry and followed him as commander on the swift boat. Mr. O'Neill, riled by what he considered Mr. Kerry's false charge in 1971 of widespread war crimes committed by U.S. troops, has waged a public debate with the politician dating back to the "Dick Cavett Show" that year.
The book quotes Mr. Kerry's fellow combatants as saying two of his Purple Hearts came from friendly fire, not the enemy. The veterans also will dispute other stories Mr. Kerry has told. "Unfit for Command" will not be released until Sept. 25, but the online Drudge Report yesterday broke news of what it called a "bombshell book." The book hit No. 2 on Amazon.com's best-seller list. Radio and TV hosts were clamoring for Mr. O'Neill to appear. Regnery, which boasts a long list of best-selling conservative books, has put a tight hold on information until the official release. Some of the book's charges have been aired by Veterans for Truth. Retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, who commanded Mr. Kerry's task force in Vietnam, is one of the book's sources.
Adm. Hoffmann said yesterday he has supplied several instances of Mr. Kerry's purported lies. One example, he said, is Mr. Kerry's contention that he warned admirals of the folly of a certain river operation. Adm. Hoffmann said he and others were at the meeting, and that Mr. Kerry never made such a statement. "The real truth is he didn't say a ... word," Adm. Hoffmann said. Mr. Hoffmann is chairman of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which plans what it calls a grass-roots campaign. "We're going to tell the truth -- the fact that he was a perpetual, habitual liar," Adm. Hoffmann said. "I don't care whether it was perjury or lying before the Senate of the United States, or that two of his Purple Hearts are at least very specious, if not absolutely false, because he filed false after-action reports."
www.washingtontimes.com Kerry's exploits in Vietnam are disputed in best seller
By Rowan ScarboroughTHE WASHINGTON TIMES Published July 30, 2004
Democrats capped Sen. John Kerry's presidential nomination last night by showing a Hollywood-produced movie of his life, featuring amateur film clips and testaments about his service in Vietnam as commander of a Navy river patrol boat. But a group of former sailors who served with Mr. Kerry are telling a different story. Rather than depicting Mr. Kerry as a war hero, they are quoted in a new book accusing him of exaggerating and falsifying his experiences. The group says that of 23 crew members photographed with Mr. Kerry more than 30 years ago in Vietnam, only one supports his presidential campaign. They will announce a nationwide campaign by "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" to tell the American public about what they say is Mr. Kerry's true war record.
The biographical movie shown last night, "A Remarkable Promise," shows "family and friends talking about the courage he has shown as a soldier and a veteran, the fights he has waged for middle-class values and the faith in family he has exhibited as a father and husband," the Kerry campaign said before its prime-time convention appearance. The film was produced by James Moll, a partner of director Steven Spielberg. The book, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," from Regnery Publishing, is written by John E. O'Neill. Mr. O'Neill served in Vietnam at the same time as Mr. Kerry and followed him as commander on the swift boat. Mr. O'Neill, riled by what he considered Mr. Kerry's false charge in 1971 of widespread war crimes committed by U.S. troops, has waged a public debate with the politician dating back to the "Dick Cavett Show" that year.
The book quotes Mr. Kerry's fellow combatants as saying two of his Purple Hearts came from friendly fire, not the enemy. The veterans also will dispute other stories Mr. Kerry has told. "Unfit for Command" will not be released until Sept. 25, but the online Drudge Report yesterday broke news of what it called a "bombshell book." The book hit No. 2 on Amazon.com's best-seller list. Radio and TV hosts were clamoring for Mr. O'Neill to appear. Regnery, which boasts a long list of best-selling conservative books, has put a tight hold on information until the official release. Some of the book's charges have been aired by Veterans for Truth. Retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, who commanded Mr. Kerry's task force in Vietnam, is one of the book's sources.
Adm. Hoffmann said yesterday he has supplied several instances of Mr. Kerry's purported lies. One example, he said, is Mr. Kerry's contention that he warned admirals of the folly of a certain river operation. Adm. Hoffmann said he and others were at the meeting, and that Mr. Kerry never made such a statement. "The real truth is he didn't say a ... word," Adm. Hoffmann said. Mr. Hoffmann is chairman of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which plans what it calls a grass-roots campaign. "We're going to tell the truth -- the fact that he was a perpetual, habitual liar," Adm. Hoffmann said. "I don't care whether it was perjury or lying before the Senate of the United States, or that two of his Purple Hearts are at least very specious, if not absolutely false, because he filed false after-action reports."
POEM: Reporting For Duty - O
Attention, DNC, fellow Americans and the world at large
All we need is love
So give peace a chance
Help, we need somebody
Send heroes, hope and help
Silver Star and Purple Hearts
Ladies marry the girl next door
Abort the fetus and send the stem cells to
Voodoo doctors with magic trial lawyer smarts too
I am here with the Queen of Hearts
All we need is love
So give peace a chance
Help, we need somebody
Send heroes, hope and help
Silver Star and Purple Hearts
Ladies marry the girl next door
Abort the fetus and send the stem cells to
Voodoo doctors with magic trial lawyer smarts too
I am here with the Queen of Hearts
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Stratfor: The Art of Disguise
Terrorist Tactics: The Art of Disguise Jul 29, 2004 1550 GMT
Security sources in southern California have told Stratfor about incidents involving "vehicle-spoofing" -- or the use of falsely marked utility vehicles. The markings -- said to be fairly professionally done -- were identified by investigators looking into drug-smuggling cases.
That said, the potential for vehicle-spoofing and other types of disguises as terrorist tactics is a cause for concern.
The use of vehicles disguised as official or corporate cars, vans or trucks is an old tactic among criminals and militants that still bears review. It has cropped up everywhere -- from Iraq and Saudi Arabia to Maryland and San Diego -- and is even used by U.S. law enforcement agencies during surveillance operations. Such vehicles arouse little suspicion among the public -- and from a mental awareness standpoint, the mind has a tendency to discount the obvious, such as a delivery truck parked in a fire lane.
Stratfor has long argued that observance and vigilance among citizens are the best defenses against terrorism; the difficulty -- particularly during periods of heightened alert -- is knowing what to be on watch for.
Spoofed vehicles are only one example: Sources have told Stratfor that those identified in southern California were reasonable facsimiles of company vehicles -- utility trucks, delivery vehicles or even fleet sedans with corporate markings -- that would not attract notice from casual observers (emphasis on "casual"). In the past, militants also have used taxis as cover for surveillance; this has occurred in New York City and New Orleans, where investigators disrupted a Sikh militant assassination plot against Indian diplomats.
Other tactics include:
Official uniforms that are copied or stolen: This tactic has been used in terrorist attacks in the past, including the May assaults against Westerners at the Oasis housing compound in Khobar, Saudi Arabia. In the United States, theft of official uniforms -- such as those for police, firemen or security guards -- can be difficult to prevent; the most effective countermeasure usually is speedily reporting the theft to authorities.
Theft or copying of identification cards and badges: Requiring employees to display identification badges in order to enter the workplace is an effective security measure for many government agencies and companies, but it also renders the workplace vulnerable: Employees often wear their badges outside the building -- where they inadvertently could reveal important information or be lost or stolen. That said, employers can protect themselves through measures such as proxy card/badge readers, which allow specific numeric identifiers on lost or stolen cards to be deleted in real-time from computer memory banks, keeping any impostors from accessing the facility.
Stolen utility vehicles: These could be used in car- or truck-bombing plots, a tactic al Qaeda has discussed in the past. In 1993, militants in New York City considered using stolen delivery vans to gain access to target venues in several scenarios, such as blowing up the Waldorf-Astoria or U.N. Plaza Hotel. Countermeasures that can help to prevent against such attacks include the use of global positioning systems or similar technology that allows companies to trace lost or stolen vehicles quickly. GPS systems routinely are installed in commercial tractor-trailers, where federal officials say they have been extremely effective in preventing theft of cargo-loads traveling U.S. interstates.
Security sources in southern California have told Stratfor about incidents involving "vehicle-spoofing" -- or the use of falsely marked utility vehicles. The markings -- said to be fairly professionally done -- were identified by investigators looking into drug-smuggling cases.
That said, the potential for vehicle-spoofing and other types of disguises as terrorist tactics is a cause for concern.
The use of vehicles disguised as official or corporate cars, vans or trucks is an old tactic among criminals and militants that still bears review. It has cropped up everywhere -- from Iraq and Saudi Arabia to Maryland and San Diego -- and is even used by U.S. law enforcement agencies during surveillance operations. Such vehicles arouse little suspicion among the public -- and from a mental awareness standpoint, the mind has a tendency to discount the obvious, such as a delivery truck parked in a fire lane.
Stratfor has long argued that observance and vigilance among citizens are the best defenses against terrorism; the difficulty -- particularly during periods of heightened alert -- is knowing what to be on watch for.
Spoofed vehicles are only one example: Sources have told Stratfor that those identified in southern California were reasonable facsimiles of company vehicles -- utility trucks, delivery vehicles or even fleet sedans with corporate markings -- that would not attract notice from casual observers (emphasis on "casual"). In the past, militants also have used taxis as cover for surveillance; this has occurred in New York City and New Orleans, where investigators disrupted a Sikh militant assassination plot against Indian diplomats.
Other tactics include:
Official uniforms that are copied or stolen: This tactic has been used in terrorist attacks in the past, including the May assaults against Westerners at the Oasis housing compound in Khobar, Saudi Arabia. In the United States, theft of official uniforms -- such as those for police, firemen or security guards -- can be difficult to prevent; the most effective countermeasure usually is speedily reporting the theft to authorities.
Theft or copying of identification cards and badges: Requiring employees to display identification badges in order to enter the workplace is an effective security measure for many government agencies and companies, but it also renders the workplace vulnerable: Employees often wear their badges outside the building -- where they inadvertently could reveal important information or be lost or stolen. That said, employers can protect themselves through measures such as proxy card/badge readers, which allow specific numeric identifiers on lost or stolen cards to be deleted in real-time from computer memory banks, keeping any impostors from accessing the facility.
Stolen utility vehicles: These could be used in car- or truck-bombing plots, a tactic al Qaeda has discussed in the past. In 1993, militants in New York City considered using stolen delivery vans to gain access to target venues in several scenarios, such as blowing up the Waldorf-Astoria or U.N. Plaza Hotel. Countermeasures that can help to prevent against such attacks include the use of global positioning systems or similar technology that allows companies to trace lost or stolen vehicles quickly. GPS systems routinely are installed in commercial tractor-trailers, where federal officials say they have been extremely effective in preventing theft of cargo-loads traveling U.S. interstates.
When Hollywood Declares Us Ignorant - O
The power for change rests within each individual, by our example, unity and actions. Yes, we have failed in certain areas and accomplished great things in other areas. I just don't appreciate being lumped into some giant group called ignorant by simplistic performers who have basic educations and who were just plain lucky to get the break which, by the way, came to them as a result of support from the Americans they constantly criticize.
Let the ones who have no sin cast the first stone, and let all the others repent and seek change.
We could all use a little more Sun Tzu in our lives.
Let the ones who have no sin cast the first stone, and let all the others repent and seek change.
We could all use a little more Sun Tzu in our lives.
CIA Head
My vote for DCI. Sept. 11 commission member and former Navy Secretary John Lehman - put Intelligence back into CIA.
The American Film Renaissance
U.S. conservatives plan 9-11 film backlashFri 25 June, 2004 10:18
By Paul Bond
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Just as his "Fahrenheit 9/11" opens nationwide, several filmmakers are readying documentaries aimed at debunking Michael Moore, and a new film festival is being planned that will feature such works.
Scheduled September 9-11 in Dallas, the American Film Renaissance, as the festival will be known, has just been announced by co-founder Jim Hubbard, who said it is bankrolled primarily by some "big-time conservative donors."
Hubbard currently is negotiating to show two films critical of Moore. The first is "Michael Moore Hates America," made by newcomer Michael Wilson and funded partially by Brian Cartmell, who made a small fortune when he sold his Internet domain registration company, eNic, to Verisign. The feature film, made for $200,000 (110,000 pounds) and featuring appearances from Penn Jillette and John Stossel, among others, is looking for a theatrical and DVD distribution deal.
The second is the bigger-budget effort "Michael & Me" that was made by talk-radio star and soon-to-be TV host Larry Elder. The 90-minute documentary takes on Moore's 2002 anti-gun documentary, "Bowling for Columbine", Elder said. "My film is a defence of those who own guns and of the Second Amendment," said Elder, whose "The Larry Elder Show" from Warner Bros. Prods. starts September 13 on CBS affiliates in most major markets.
Elder said that he borrows liberally from Moore, including a "Bowling"-like animated segment that has Elder interviewing an obviously tense Moore. "He's sweating and sweating to the point he's reed thin, then he pulls out a gun and shoots me."
Moore didn't agree to an interview for either Elder's movie or Wilson's. "I did ambush him at a book signing in Santa Monica, and that's in the film," Elder said. "I asked him how many times Americans used guns for defensive purposes. He had nothing. No blooming clue."
For Moore's part, he said he's familiar with the title "Michael Moore Hates America" but doubts the movie even exists, beyond the trailer that can be seen on the Internet. "You're being duped by the kooky right," he said. "I've been waiting to see this movie. It sounds like great science fiction." Moore said he hadn't heard of Elder's film "Michael & Me".
As for the festival, Hubbard said that about 10 films are confirmed, and he'll cap it at about two dozen. Film reviewer Michael Medved is a confirmed guest as is Lionel Chetwynd, whose Showtime movie "DC 9/11", starring Timothy Bottoms as President Bush, will be shown.
"I'm itching to show that anywhere I can," Chetwynd said. "Like with all cable films, you want to keep it out there as long as you can to get it in front of as wide an audience as possible."
Hubbard and wife, Ellen, both attorneys, co-founded the festival in the spirit of competition. Boycott efforts, like the one from the group MoveAmericaForward.org that is asking exhibitors not to show Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," "are for the weak," Hubbard said. "We want everyone to see Michael Moore's film," he said. "We also want everyone to see 'Michael Moore Hates America.' Conservatives complain about institutional bias in Hollywood. They need to stop whining and get out there and produce."
"Documentaries," added filmmaker Wilson, "are not 'Lions of the Serengeti' anymore. In this politically charged climate, they're skewed to an agenda, be it Michael Moore's or mine."
Not all films screened at the American Film Renaissance will invoke Moore. Patrick Wright's documentary, "Is It True What They Say About Ann?" focuses on Ann Coulter, the Fox News pundit. It was recently screened at the Melbourne Film Festival. And the war on terror also is expected to be a dominant theme at the American Film Renaissance. "Liberal Hollywood has basically ignored the subject," filmmaker Jason Apuzzo said. His entry to the festival is "Terminal Island" and stars his wife, Govindini Murty, with a cameo from Irvin Kershner, director of "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Never Say Never Again." Kershner, who Apuzzo noted does not share the same politics as Apuzzo and Murty, nevertheless mentored the couple in the making of their film. "Conservative messages don't have a chance in contemporary Hollywood," Apuzzo said. "But there's another side in Hollywood. We are small in numbers but passionate." "Terminal Island" is a black-and-white feature film about a woman being stalked by a Muslim terrorist who is himself being stalked by a bounty hunter. "When you shop a script like this around," said Murty, "studio execs say, 'Is this about Muslim terrorists? We don't want to touch it.'"
So why have a couple of lawyers from Texas created a film festival? "I've always been interested in the cultural and political messages in film," Jim Hubbard said. "To be frank, whenever there is such a message, it's liberal. For 40 years the left has had a near monopoly, and we're going to counter that."
By Paul Bond
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Just as his "Fahrenheit 9/11" opens nationwide, several filmmakers are readying documentaries aimed at debunking Michael Moore, and a new film festival is being planned that will feature such works.
Scheduled September 9-11 in Dallas, the American Film Renaissance, as the festival will be known, has just been announced by co-founder Jim Hubbard, who said it is bankrolled primarily by some "big-time conservative donors."
Hubbard currently is negotiating to show two films critical of Moore. The first is "Michael Moore Hates America," made by newcomer Michael Wilson and funded partially by Brian Cartmell, who made a small fortune when he sold his Internet domain registration company, eNic, to Verisign. The feature film, made for $200,000 (110,000 pounds) and featuring appearances from Penn Jillette and John Stossel, among others, is looking for a theatrical and DVD distribution deal.
The second is the bigger-budget effort "Michael & Me" that was made by talk-radio star and soon-to-be TV host Larry Elder. The 90-minute documentary takes on Moore's 2002 anti-gun documentary, "Bowling for Columbine", Elder said. "My film is a defence of those who own guns and of the Second Amendment," said Elder, whose "The Larry Elder Show" from Warner Bros. Prods. starts September 13 on CBS affiliates in most major markets.
Elder said that he borrows liberally from Moore, including a "Bowling"-like animated segment that has Elder interviewing an obviously tense Moore. "He's sweating and sweating to the point he's reed thin, then he pulls out a gun and shoots me."
Moore didn't agree to an interview for either Elder's movie or Wilson's. "I did ambush him at a book signing in Santa Monica, and that's in the film," Elder said. "I asked him how many times Americans used guns for defensive purposes. He had nothing. No blooming clue."
For Moore's part, he said he's familiar with the title "Michael Moore Hates America" but doubts the movie even exists, beyond the trailer that can be seen on the Internet. "You're being duped by the kooky right," he said. "I've been waiting to see this movie. It sounds like great science fiction." Moore said he hadn't heard of Elder's film "Michael & Me".
As for the festival, Hubbard said that about 10 films are confirmed, and he'll cap it at about two dozen. Film reviewer Michael Medved is a confirmed guest as is Lionel Chetwynd, whose Showtime movie "DC 9/11", starring Timothy Bottoms as President Bush, will be shown.
"I'm itching to show that anywhere I can," Chetwynd said. "Like with all cable films, you want to keep it out there as long as you can to get it in front of as wide an audience as possible."
Hubbard and wife, Ellen, both attorneys, co-founded the festival in the spirit of competition. Boycott efforts, like the one from the group MoveAmericaForward.org that is asking exhibitors not to show Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," "are for the weak," Hubbard said. "We want everyone to see Michael Moore's film," he said. "We also want everyone to see 'Michael Moore Hates America.' Conservatives complain about institutional bias in Hollywood. They need to stop whining and get out there and produce."
"Documentaries," added filmmaker Wilson, "are not 'Lions of the Serengeti' anymore. In this politically charged climate, they're skewed to an agenda, be it Michael Moore's or mine."
Not all films screened at the American Film Renaissance will invoke Moore. Patrick Wright's documentary, "Is It True What They Say About Ann?" focuses on Ann Coulter, the Fox News pundit. It was recently screened at the Melbourne Film Festival. And the war on terror also is expected to be a dominant theme at the American Film Renaissance. "Liberal Hollywood has basically ignored the subject," filmmaker Jason Apuzzo said. His entry to the festival is "Terminal Island" and stars his wife, Govindini Murty, with a cameo from Irvin Kershner, director of "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Never Say Never Again." Kershner, who Apuzzo noted does not share the same politics as Apuzzo and Murty, nevertheless mentored the couple in the making of their film. "Conservative messages don't have a chance in contemporary Hollywood," Apuzzo said. "But there's another side in Hollywood. We are small in numbers but passionate." "Terminal Island" is a black-and-white feature film about a woman being stalked by a Muslim terrorist who is himself being stalked by a bounty hunter. "When you shop a script like this around," said Murty, "studio execs say, 'Is this about Muslim terrorists? We don't want to touch it.'"
So why have a couple of lawyers from Texas created a film festival? "I've always been interested in the cultural and political messages in film," Jim Hubbard said. "To be frank, whenever there is such a message, it's liberal. For 40 years the left has had a near monopoly, and we're going to counter that."
What is the Kerry/Edwards Value System? - O
Kerry/Edwards want to focus on values, and yet, they are selling out to Hollywood. America will not forget the comparison between Whoopie Goldberg's most private body part and President Bush? That is a value system?
I think we need to see more of the courtship between Kerry and Edwards as Kerry lobbies for the gay vote. What is the touching and feeling and hugging all about?
Bald men are less than, and men who touch, hug, fondle and coo each other are more than?
Exactly what value system is Kerry referring to?
The Laci Peterson Law protecting pregnant women?
Same gender marriage? or Same species marriage?
Raping big business to give to the rich?
The ruination of the medical system in this country as a result of self serving mal practice suits?
Questionable campaign donations?
What value system was Edwards discussing in Italy?
-- I am really confused, I want to hear more about policy, issues, solutions, hard core plans for the next four years, and everytime I read a paper, or watch the news or listen to the radio, the only information being presented is spin.
I think we need to see more of the courtship between Kerry and Edwards as Kerry lobbies for the gay vote. What is the touching and feeling and hugging all about?
Bald men are less than, and men who touch, hug, fondle and coo each other are more than?
Exactly what value system is Kerry referring to?
The Laci Peterson Law protecting pregnant women?
Same gender marriage? or Same species marriage?
Raping big business to give to the rich?
The ruination of the medical system in this country as a result of self serving mal practice suits?
Questionable campaign donations?
What value system was Edwards discussing in Italy?
-- I am really confused, I want to hear more about policy, issues, solutions, hard core plans for the next four years, and everytime I read a paper, or watch the news or listen to the radio, the only information being presented is spin.
Countdown to the Kerry/Edwards Unwind - O
During the weeks preceding the naming of his Vice Presidential running mate, Senator Kerry appeared automated, frightened and exhibited classic physical signs of a man out of control. He almost appeared depressive. He was unable to make a move without being buried under a backwash of press, public rejection and a great deal of personal, professional and military service humiliation. Women found him repulsive and hideous, men tried to relate, and found that but for his being the Democrat’s apparent choice, there was little to share in common with the man. Only a few of the brave who served in Vietnam stood with him.
However, as the winds of time changed his direction, the beautiful and witty John Edwards entered the collapsing Kerry camp, and there was an apparent visible change in Mr. Kerry’s demeanor. He became manic. Within a few short hours, John Kerry was alive again. His savior had arrived. His redeemer appeared.
The first 48 hours of public strutting were almost sensual. The touching, feeling, long gazing stares. Senator John Kerry was swept into and up by the charms of the Svengali, would be President himself, Mr. Edwards. Kerry compared their great simpatico, most notably their hair. How good it must have felt for Kerry to stroke John Edward’s thick, rich, soft and full head of hair. Under it exists the core of Mr. Edward’s mysteries. He is so loved, so admired, so sought after, and all of his own hand. Mr. Edwards did not have to resort to one single uncomfortable night in a marriage bed in order to grab his fortunes. How Senator Kerry must long to be just one little smidgen like John Edwards.
But wait. The mania cannot last forever. The pendulum mood must again swing left to the dark and desperate, secret chambers hidden within the gray matter of the gray man’s head. What will happen when Senator Edward’s awakes to find that he exists only behind the bleached toothy smile of John Edwards? Today, John Kerry is comforted to find a moment within which he might catch his breath as his newfound hero steps forward, mic in hand, to charm, enchant and engage the masses now clamoring to meet the beautiful one.
On the day that the fog lifts and John Kerry realizes that it’s all about John Edwards, the duo will be in big puo. The honeymoon will be over and the perfect marriage will be on the rocks. The body language will say it all.
In the meantime, the media must continue to ignore John Kerry completely, and increase the lauding of the great, white savior of mankind, Senator John Edwards. The media must not cover anything negative about Senator John Kerry. In fact, the media should cease all coverage of John Kerry completely.
We must all do our part to let John Edwards know that it is he we love and adore. Without John Edwards there would not even by a Presidential contest. He saved us from ourselves, from George Bush, Chaney, Rumsfield, Hillary and most importantly, he saved us from Senator John Kerry.
God bless Senator John Edwards and all that he represents to the free world.
However, as the winds of time changed his direction, the beautiful and witty John Edwards entered the collapsing Kerry camp, and there was an apparent visible change in Mr. Kerry’s demeanor. He became manic. Within a few short hours, John Kerry was alive again. His savior had arrived. His redeemer appeared.
The first 48 hours of public strutting were almost sensual. The touching, feeling, long gazing stares. Senator John Kerry was swept into and up by the charms of the Svengali, would be President himself, Mr. Edwards. Kerry compared their great simpatico, most notably their hair. How good it must have felt for Kerry to stroke John Edward’s thick, rich, soft and full head of hair. Under it exists the core of Mr. Edward’s mysteries. He is so loved, so admired, so sought after, and all of his own hand. Mr. Edwards did not have to resort to one single uncomfortable night in a marriage bed in order to grab his fortunes. How Senator Kerry must long to be just one little smidgen like John Edwards.
But wait. The mania cannot last forever. The pendulum mood must again swing left to the dark and desperate, secret chambers hidden within the gray matter of the gray man’s head. What will happen when Senator Edward’s awakes to find that he exists only behind the bleached toothy smile of John Edwards? Today, John Kerry is comforted to find a moment within which he might catch his breath as his newfound hero steps forward, mic in hand, to charm, enchant and engage the masses now clamoring to meet the beautiful one.
On the day that the fog lifts and John Kerry realizes that it’s all about John Edwards, the duo will be in big puo. The honeymoon will be over and the perfect marriage will be on the rocks. The body language will say it all.
In the meantime, the media must continue to ignore John Kerry completely, and increase the lauding of the great, white savior of mankind, Senator John Edwards. The media must not cover anything negative about Senator John Kerry. In fact, the media should cease all coverage of John Kerry completely.
We must all do our part to let John Edwards know that it is he we love and adore. Without John Edwards there would not even by a Presidential contest. He saved us from ourselves, from George Bush, Chaney, Rumsfield, Hillary and most importantly, he saved us from Senator John Kerry.
God bless Senator John Edwards and all that he represents to the free world.
Estimates are that there may be 12,000,000 Mexican illegals in the US. Many of whom working under the table for cash.
If each worker sends $100 per month back to Mexico, the influx of additional cash certainly has a measurable impact on the Mexican economy. Why would President Fox want that kind of FREE cash to stop flowing into his country? What a great way for the US to sneak aid into the Mexican economy.
The 12,000,000 Mexican illegals who are in the US sucking our economy, contributing an estimated $25 per year per person back into our US treasury, would bankrupt Mexico if they were all returned.
Jack Martin recently released his study on the problem of illegals in the US and the overall economic impact they have on our economy and on individual states. He estimates that the drain on the California economy is nearly $10Billion per year, or twice the estimates given on a popular LA based radio show last week.
Our country could agree to send Mexico a few extra $Billion each year if Fox would take all of his citizens home. Mexico would be economically better off, and the US would get rid of a huge problem and realize a significant savings to the tax payers.
The fact that this is an election year provides the average American a more strident opportunity to insist that every candidate seeking election or re-election will commit to taking a strong position on this issue. And if after they are elected any one of them rescinds their campaign promise, they should be Gray Davis(ed) and be immediately recalled.
Never before in the history of this great nation have the citizens held the absolute power to dictate their will as exists today in large part because of the Internet.
We the people must JUST SAY NO to amnesty, JUST SAY NO to soft border controls and JUST SAY YES to increasing the sweeps within our borders and JUST SAY YES to enforcing the laws regarding employers who hire illegals.
Bib Ladin is old news, Iraq is old news, Ken Lay is old news. Immigration and illegal immigrants is the single most important issue facing every American from 2004 forward. Lady Liberty is being raped and pillaged by the millions of economy suckers who are here without permission. It is time for each of us to stand up and make sure that every elected official in this country understands that we will NOT vote for anyone who is not in step with enforcing all of the existing immigration laws.
Keep the focus on this issue, your efforts will make the difference.
If each worker sends $100 per month back to Mexico, the influx of additional cash certainly has a measurable impact on the Mexican economy. Why would President Fox want that kind of FREE cash to stop flowing into his country? What a great way for the US to sneak aid into the Mexican economy.
The 12,000,000 Mexican illegals who are in the US sucking our economy, contributing an estimated $25 per year per person back into our US treasury, would bankrupt Mexico if they were all returned.
Jack Martin recently released his study on the problem of illegals in the US and the overall economic impact they have on our economy and on individual states. He estimates that the drain on the California economy is nearly $10Billion per year, or twice the estimates given on a popular LA based radio show last week.
Our country could agree to send Mexico a few extra $Billion each year if Fox would take all of his citizens home. Mexico would be economically better off, and the US would get rid of a huge problem and realize a significant savings to the tax payers.
The fact that this is an election year provides the average American a more strident opportunity to insist that every candidate seeking election or re-election will commit to taking a strong position on this issue. And if after they are elected any one of them rescinds their campaign promise, they should be Gray Davis(ed) and be immediately recalled.
Never before in the history of this great nation have the citizens held the absolute power to dictate their will as exists today in large part because of the Internet.
We the people must JUST SAY NO to amnesty, JUST SAY NO to soft border controls and JUST SAY YES to increasing the sweeps within our borders and JUST SAY YES to enforcing the laws regarding employers who hire illegals.
Bib Ladin is old news, Iraq is old news, Ken Lay is old news. Immigration and illegal immigrants is the single most important issue facing every American from 2004 forward. Lady Liberty is being raped and pillaged by the millions of economy suckers who are here without permission. It is time for each of us to stand up and make sure that every elected official in this country understands that we will NOT vote for anyone who is not in step with enforcing all of the existing immigration laws.
Keep the focus on this issue, your efforts will make the difference.
Our Terrorist Insane Asylum
The Washington Timeswww.washingtontimes.com Our terrorist insane asylum
By Michelle MalkinPublished June 18, 2004
Do you know how the alleged "shopping-mall" bomber entered our country? He didn't cross the border illegally. He didn't sneak in on a ship. He came through the front door at America's invitation. Nuradin M. Abdi, indicted last week for plotting with al Qaeda to blow up an Ohio shopping mall, flew here from Somalia and received bogus "refugee" status in 1999, authorities say. Prosecutors claim Abdi then fraudulently obtained a refugee travel document, which he used to fly to Ethiopia for jihad training. After returning, Abdi blended back into the American landscape along with tens of thousands of other refugees from a country known to be a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists. Columbus, Abdi's home base, is home to more than 30,000 Somalis -- the second-largest Somali community in the United States, after Minneapolis. The Somali-al Qaeda connection is well-established. Intelligence reports indicate Osama bin Laden sent extremists to Somalia in the early 1990s to train and organize the Somali Islamic radical group al-Ittihad al-Islamiya. Bin Laden claimed responsibility for the deaths of 18 American soldiers in Mogadishu. In addition, a Saudi Arabian-based Muslim charity with alleged ties to al Qaeda has been funding refugee camps in Somali border towns. The feds have frozen the Al-Haramain Foundation's assets based on terrorism grounds, but the refugee flow from the overseas camps subsidized by the group has not been stanched. Not every Somalian refugee or asylum-seeker is a terrorist, of course. But the system for screening out the well-meaning from the menaces is completely overwhelmed. Claims of "credible fear of persecution" are almost impossible to document but are rarely rejected. Federal homeland security officials are unable to detain asylum-seekers for background checks without the civil liberties brigade screaming "racial profiling." And there is still a woeful shortage of detention space -- just 2,000 beds nationwide -- to hold those with suspect claims. As a result, thousands of refugees and asylum-seekers with flimsy claims of persecution are let loose. As the Justice Department's inspector general reported, 97 percent of all asylum-seekers from any country who were released from immigration custody were never found again and deported. Abdi's case cannot be viewed in isolation. We know of at least three other high-profile Islamic militants who exploited the asylum system over the past decade: c Ramzi Yousef landed at New York City's John F. Kennedy International Airport from Pakistan and flashed an Iraqi passport without a visa to inspectors. He was briefly detained for illegal entry and fingerprinted, but was allowed to remain in the country after invoking the magic words "political asylum." The then-Immigration and Naturalization Service released him because it lacked space in its detention facility. Yousef headed to Jersey City to plot the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. c Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, a Palestinian bomb-builder, entered the U.S. illegally through Canada in 1996 and 1997. He claimed political asylum based on alleged persecution by Israelis, was released on a reduced $5,000 bond posted by a man who was himself an illegal alien, and then skipped his asylum hearing after calling his attorney and lying about his whereabouts. In June 1997, after his lawyer withdrew Mezer's asylum claim, a federal immigration judge ordered Mezer to leave the country on a "voluntary departure order." Mezer ignored the useless piece of paper. He joined a New York City bombing plot before being arrested in July 1997 after a roommate tipped off local police. c Mir Aimal Kansi, convicted in 1997 of capital murder and nine other charges stemming from his January 1993 shooting spree outside the CIA headquarters in McLean, Va., also exploited our insane asylum laxity. Despite his history as a known Pakistani militant who took part in anti-American demonstrations abroad, Kansi received a business visa in 1991. After arrival, he claimed political asylum based on his ethnic minority status in Pakistan. While his asylum application was pending, he obtained a driver's license and an AK-47, murdered two CIA agents, and wounded three others. The feds deserve credit for tracking down asylum abusers suspected of terrorism. But homeland security would be easier to achieve if they did a better job of keeping murderous frauds out in the first place.
Michelle Malkin is a nationally syndicated columnist and the author of "Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores" (Regnery).
By Michelle MalkinPublished June 18, 2004
Do you know how the alleged "shopping-mall" bomber entered our country? He didn't cross the border illegally. He didn't sneak in on a ship. He came through the front door at America's invitation. Nuradin M. Abdi, indicted last week for plotting with al Qaeda to blow up an Ohio shopping mall, flew here from Somalia and received bogus "refugee" status in 1999, authorities say. Prosecutors claim Abdi then fraudulently obtained a refugee travel document, which he used to fly to Ethiopia for jihad training. After returning, Abdi blended back into the American landscape along with tens of thousands of other refugees from a country known to be a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists. Columbus, Abdi's home base, is home to more than 30,000 Somalis -- the second-largest Somali community in the United States, after Minneapolis. The Somali-al Qaeda connection is well-established. Intelligence reports indicate Osama bin Laden sent extremists to Somalia in the early 1990s to train and organize the Somali Islamic radical group al-Ittihad al-Islamiya. Bin Laden claimed responsibility for the deaths of 18 American soldiers in Mogadishu. In addition, a Saudi Arabian-based Muslim charity with alleged ties to al Qaeda has been funding refugee camps in Somali border towns. The feds have frozen the Al-Haramain Foundation's assets based on terrorism grounds, but the refugee flow from the overseas camps subsidized by the group has not been stanched. Not every Somalian refugee or asylum-seeker is a terrorist, of course. But the system for screening out the well-meaning from the menaces is completely overwhelmed. Claims of "credible fear of persecution" are almost impossible to document but are rarely rejected. Federal homeland security officials are unable to detain asylum-seekers for background checks without the civil liberties brigade screaming "racial profiling." And there is still a woeful shortage of detention space -- just 2,000 beds nationwide -- to hold those with suspect claims. As a result, thousands of refugees and asylum-seekers with flimsy claims of persecution are let loose. As the Justice Department's inspector general reported, 97 percent of all asylum-seekers from any country who were released from immigration custody were never found again and deported. Abdi's case cannot be viewed in isolation. We know of at least three other high-profile Islamic militants who exploited the asylum system over the past decade: c Ramzi Yousef landed at New York City's John F. Kennedy International Airport from Pakistan and flashed an Iraqi passport without a visa to inspectors. He was briefly detained for illegal entry and fingerprinted, but was allowed to remain in the country after invoking the magic words "political asylum." The then-Immigration and Naturalization Service released him because it lacked space in its detention facility. Yousef headed to Jersey City to plot the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. c Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, a Palestinian bomb-builder, entered the U.S. illegally through Canada in 1996 and 1997. He claimed political asylum based on alleged persecution by Israelis, was released on a reduced $5,000 bond posted by a man who was himself an illegal alien, and then skipped his asylum hearing after calling his attorney and lying about his whereabouts. In June 1997, after his lawyer withdrew Mezer's asylum claim, a federal immigration judge ordered Mezer to leave the country on a "voluntary departure order." Mezer ignored the useless piece of paper. He joined a New York City bombing plot before being arrested in July 1997 after a roommate tipped off local police. c Mir Aimal Kansi, convicted in 1997 of capital murder and nine other charges stemming from his January 1993 shooting spree outside the CIA headquarters in McLean, Va., also exploited our insane asylum laxity. Despite his history as a known Pakistani militant who took part in anti-American demonstrations abroad, Kansi received a business visa in 1991. After arrival, he claimed political asylum based on his ethnic minority status in Pakistan. While his asylum application was pending, he obtained a driver's license and an AK-47, murdered two CIA agents, and wounded three others. The feds deserve credit for tracking down asylum abusers suspected of terrorism. But homeland security would be easier to achieve if they did a better job of keeping murderous frauds out in the first place.
Michelle Malkin is a nationally syndicated columnist and the author of "Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores" (Regnery).
Dave Kopel on Moore
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
I herewith forward an objective and unbaised analysis of Moore's film. It has been prepared by Dave Kopel who is a registered Democrat and the research director at the Independence Institute. His bio is impressive:
Former Assistant Attorney General, State of Colorado
University of Michigan Law School, J.D. magna cum laude
Contributing Editor, Michigan Law Review.
Brown University, B.A. in History with Highest Honors
National Geographic Society Prize for best History thesis.
He also is regularly interviewed on local and national radio and television broadcasts. He has authored over 20 books, and regularly contributes to national magazines and newspapers, such as the Rocky Mountain News.
Anyone who has seen the movie or is considering seeing the movie should seriously read his article:
Dave Kopel recently published an article entitled: “59 Deceits in Fahrenheit 911”. The article is an OBJECTIVE and UNBIASED, academic analysis of the movie. He points out where Michael Moore is factually correct, and also where he intentionally misleads and deceives. This article was originally written for National Review Online, but a preliminary version has already earned Dave national recognition.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
I herewith forward an objective and unbaised analysis of Moore's film. It has been prepared by Dave Kopel who is a registered Democrat and the research director at the Independence Institute. His bio is impressive:
Former Assistant Attorney General, State of Colorado
University of Michigan Law School, J.D. magna cum laude
Contributing Editor, Michigan Law Review.
Brown University, B.A. in History with Highest Honors
National Geographic Society Prize for best History thesis.
He also is regularly interviewed on local and national radio and television broadcasts. He has authored over 20 books, and regularly contributes to national magazines and newspapers, such as the Rocky Mountain News.
Anyone who has seen the movie or is considering seeing the movie should seriously read his article:
Dave Kopel recently published an article entitled: “59 Deceits in Fahrenheit 911”. The article is an OBJECTIVE and UNBIASED, academic analysis of the movie. He points out where Michael Moore is factually correct, and also where he intentionally misleads and deceives. This article was originally written for National Review Online, but a preliminary version has already earned Dave national recognition.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
Who Is The Manchurian Candidate - O
Kerry goes to Vietnam
Kerry becomes a war protestor
Kerry becomes a US Senator
Kerry is honored in Hanoi for his anti-US protestor activities
Kerry becomes a Presidential candidate
Kerry - the Manchurian Candidate ?
-- another Michael Moore circle of filmmaker conspiracy productions - maybe, or maybe just a Fahrenheit 911 balanced POV.
Kerry becomes a war protestor
Kerry becomes a US Senator
Kerry is honored in Hanoi for his anti-US protestor activities
Kerry becomes a Presidential candidate
Kerry - the Manchurian Candidate ?
-- another Michael Moore circle of filmmaker conspiracy productions - maybe, or maybe just a Fahrenheit 911 balanced POV.
Through the eyes of a child - O
The following letter sent to GWB may inspire people who are not clear about how to reconcile their differences with the President on specific issues while remaining supportive of the larger picture. If more of us could see it the way an 11 year old child does, we would be living with a completely different value system. Some may disagree on his immigration plan, or stem cell research, or on his management of the middle east; however, we must remain committed to the larger picture. We have the power to control destiny. If you are reading this message, then you are in a position to communicate to people within your own address book, and they to their address book. It is not just viruses that are sent via email, we can use the same system to keep America free and out of the hands of the radical, liberal left. If an 11 year old child can do it, we can each do our part to keep the message alive.
----------------------------------
President George Bush 4 July 2004
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Wash D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
My Name is Elizabeth Lulu. I am 11 years old, which is too young to vote this year, but I do watch the news and I do talk to my friends, family, and medical caregivers about how important being patriotic is for America to grow and for us to remain free.
I understand how difficult it is for you to make everyone happy, and how hard it is for you to make some of your decisions when you know that some people may be hurt or, worse, die as a result of your orders.
I was born with Cystic Fibrosis. It is a genetic disease that kills many kids and young people every year. Sometimes my doctors have to order tests and procedures that hurt me, and could even put me at risk of dying. But they, like you, have to make the tough decisions so that we can all make progress for a better future.
Sometimes I don’t understand why I need to suffer, and sometimes I know that it makes people sad when I have to suffer through my treatments, hospital visits and therapies. I know that my family doesn’t always agree with what the doctors may want me to do. But I do believe that while everyone does not agree with some of the decisions, everyone does agree with the goal.
I think that in a way your job is the same. Some people may not agree with all of the things you do, but most people do support your goals for freedom and a better future. So don’t give up. I have learned that each time I survive a difficulty; I get stronger and more able to face the next challenge.
God bless you and God bless America, because with God as our partner, we will always do the right thing.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Lulu
If you would like to send a note to Miss Lulu, please send it c/o of my email and I will forward your messages to her.
----------------------------------
President George Bush 4 July 2004
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Wash D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
My Name is Elizabeth Lulu. I am 11 years old, which is too young to vote this year, but I do watch the news and I do talk to my friends, family, and medical caregivers about how important being patriotic is for America to grow and for us to remain free.
I understand how difficult it is for you to make everyone happy, and how hard it is for you to make some of your decisions when you know that some people may be hurt or, worse, die as a result of your orders.
I was born with Cystic Fibrosis. It is a genetic disease that kills many kids and young people every year. Sometimes my doctors have to order tests and procedures that hurt me, and could even put me at risk of dying. But they, like you, have to make the tough decisions so that we can all make progress for a better future.
Sometimes I don’t understand why I need to suffer, and sometimes I know that it makes people sad when I have to suffer through my treatments, hospital visits and therapies. I know that my family doesn’t always agree with what the doctors may want me to do. But I do believe that while everyone does not agree with some of the decisions, everyone does agree with the goal.
I think that in a way your job is the same. Some people may not agree with all of the things you do, but most people do support your goals for freedom and a better future. So don’t give up. I have learned that each time I survive a difficulty; I get stronger and more able to face the next challenge.
God bless you and God bless America, because with God as our partner, we will always do the right thing.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Lulu
If you would like to send a note to Miss Lulu, please send it c/o of my email and I will forward your messages to her.
No Teachers Union Left Behind by Ann Coulter
Thursday, July 29, 2004 No Teachers Union Left Behind By Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com
The traditional greeting at the Democratic National Convention is, "Where do you teach?" On rare occasions, the greeting is modified to, "Where does your husband teach?" or "Where does your gay lover teach?" (Democrats could save a lot of money by holding the Democratic National Convention and the National Education Association Convention at the same time.)The Democrats keep loudly proclaiming that Republicans represent only extremely white rich people, while the Democrats represent all Americans. (Bar bet: Among the four major candidates for president and vice president this year, who has the smallest net worth? Answer: George Bush.)If the Democrats are a fair cross-section of America, then I guess we can stop worrying about class size. As a friend of mine points out, if the Democratic delegates represent America, then the teacher-student ratio in this country is, at worst, one teacher for every three students. And since the teachers unions don't include private or parochial school teachers, we're looking at a teacher-student ratio of about one teacher for every one student.Democrats are representative of the nation only if the nation we're talking about is Brazil. For Democrats, there is only the maid and millionaires. There are no Americans in the middle. To the extent Democrats are forced to recognize working-class white men, they call them "fascists."To thunderous applause here in the American Taliban, billionaire Teresa Heinz Kerry said she looks forward to a day when "women who have earned the right to be opinionated will be called smart and informed – just as men are." It's no wonder Democrats weren't interested in liberating Afghanistan and Iraq from woman-hating Islamicist fanatics: They think real oppression of women consists of people calling Teresa "opinionated" right here in the USA.How did Teresa "earn" the right to be opinionated again? By marrying inherited wealth? She also boasted that the Heinz family charity, John Kerry, "earned his medals the old-fashioned way." A couple of sponges on another man's wealth might want to steer clear of using the word "earn" so much. Democrats don't believe in capitalism and don't worry about taxes on earned income because they can't imagine there is any way to "earn" money other than the Teresa Heinz-John Kerry way.Despite colossal efforts by the Democrats to fake out Americans and pretend the Democrats are normal Americans who love their country, every once in a while they make a mistake and give us a "tell." The Democrats have carefully studied Americans, observed their habits and expressions, so you would think for five days the Democrats could pull off a passable impression.Special-effects artists are working overtime. Gore was prohibited from screeching about Republicans being Nazis, and Clinton was told not to show up in a toga. Democrats unable to conceal their America-hating pacifism were relieved of their anti-war signs and escorted to the free-speech veal pens a few blocks from the convention center.Convention organizers even forced the delegates to choke their way through the Pledge of Allegiance – something the teachers' students are not allowed to say. The delegates play along, pretending they know the words and making the occasional random reference to "God," trying not to sound ironic.But, inevitably, they stumble, dogs start growling, and you realize these people are androids.In a prepared speech carefully reviewed by the Democrats' Americanization team, Jimmy Carter said: "After 9-11, America stood proud." Proud? I believe "proud" was the last emotion most Americans were feeling after 9-11, coming in considerably behind, for example, "fighting mad," "incensed," "enraged," "humiliated" and "vengeful." It didn't occur to any of the Democrats vetting Carter's speech to cut that line? "What's the matter, Prince? Why are you growling? That's just a moderate Democrat."Even as Democrats ape Republicans – producing a platform that lyingly claims Democrats support war with Iraq, the Patriot Act and the defense of America – the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats can't help slipping out: Democrats are not angry about 9-11. Sad, maybe – sad that it didn't happen on Clinton's watch so his legacy would be more than a semen stain. But they're not angry.Indeed, the belle of the ball at the convention is noted patriot Michael Moore, who apparently thinks Americans who voted for George Bush deserved to be killed on 9-11. The day of the attack, Moore wrote this on his Web page: "Many families have been devastated tonight. This is just not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, D.C. and the planes' destination of California – these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!" Perhaps Moore could provide the terrorists with a map of the red states before the next attack.This week, Moore was boasting about how well-received he was by the Democrats in Boston – evidenced by his yukking it up in a sky box with former president Jimmy Carter. He has been hugged by DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe and praised by impeached former president Bill Clinton.Moore's only concession to the Democrats' role-playing is to deny that he is a Democrat, hoping enough Americans were taught by public school teachers that no one will know how to look up Moore's voter registration card. ("Democrat.")Moore says Bush must be defeated because Bush lied about the war in Iraq. Ninety-three percent of the delegates agree with him, saying they oppose the war in Iraq, according to a New York Times-CBS News poll.But the Democrats' candidates for president and vice president both voted for war with Iraq. Their party platform supports the war with Iraq. (Let's just hope wherever the delegates teach, they're not teaching logic.)The only "issues" Democrats dare discuss publicly are the things everyone can agree on: They are for "jobs," a good economy and the middle class. None of their blather ever touches on any issue on which Democrats and Republicans could possibly disagree.The issues on which the parties differ are: pre-emptive attacks on terror-producing nations, gay marriage, gun control, partial-birth abortion, taxes, letting non-citizens and felons vote. But the Democrats won't talk about those issues. This is the Democrats' week to make-believe they are Republicans for the folks watching at home on TV. In the lingo of the delegates, this is "story time."Ann Coulter is a bestselling author and syndicated columnist. Her most recent book is Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.
FrontPageMagazine.com
The traditional greeting at the Democratic National Convention is, "Where do you teach?" On rare occasions, the greeting is modified to, "Where does your husband teach?" or "Where does your gay lover teach?" (Democrats could save a lot of money by holding the Democratic National Convention and the National Education Association Convention at the same time.)The Democrats keep loudly proclaiming that Republicans represent only extremely white rich people, while the Democrats represent all Americans. (Bar bet: Among the four major candidates for president and vice president this year, who has the smallest net worth? Answer: George Bush.)If the Democrats are a fair cross-section of America, then I guess we can stop worrying about class size. As a friend of mine points out, if the Democratic delegates represent America, then the teacher-student ratio in this country is, at worst, one teacher for every three students. And since the teachers unions don't include private or parochial school teachers, we're looking at a teacher-student ratio of about one teacher for every one student.Democrats are representative of the nation only if the nation we're talking about is Brazil. For Democrats, there is only the maid and millionaires. There are no Americans in the middle. To the extent Democrats are forced to recognize working-class white men, they call them "fascists."To thunderous applause here in the American Taliban, billionaire Teresa Heinz Kerry said she looks forward to a day when "women who have earned the right to be opinionated will be called smart and informed – just as men are." It's no wonder Democrats weren't interested in liberating Afghanistan and Iraq from woman-hating Islamicist fanatics: They think real oppression of women consists of people calling Teresa "opinionated" right here in the USA.How did Teresa "earn" the right to be opinionated again? By marrying inherited wealth? She also boasted that the Heinz family charity, John Kerry, "earned his medals the old-fashioned way." A couple of sponges on another man's wealth might want to steer clear of using the word "earn" so much. Democrats don't believe in capitalism and don't worry about taxes on earned income because they can't imagine there is any way to "earn" money other than the Teresa Heinz-John Kerry way.Despite colossal efforts by the Democrats to fake out Americans and pretend the Democrats are normal Americans who love their country, every once in a while they make a mistake and give us a "tell." The Democrats have carefully studied Americans, observed their habits and expressions, so you would think for five days the Democrats could pull off a passable impression.Special-effects artists are working overtime. Gore was prohibited from screeching about Republicans being Nazis, and Clinton was told not to show up in a toga. Democrats unable to conceal their America-hating pacifism were relieved of their anti-war signs and escorted to the free-speech veal pens a few blocks from the convention center.Convention organizers even forced the delegates to choke their way through the Pledge of Allegiance – something the teachers' students are not allowed to say. The delegates play along, pretending they know the words and making the occasional random reference to "God," trying not to sound ironic.But, inevitably, they stumble, dogs start growling, and you realize these people are androids.In a prepared speech carefully reviewed by the Democrats' Americanization team, Jimmy Carter said: "After 9-11, America stood proud." Proud? I believe "proud" was the last emotion most Americans were feeling after 9-11, coming in considerably behind, for example, "fighting mad," "incensed," "enraged," "humiliated" and "vengeful." It didn't occur to any of the Democrats vetting Carter's speech to cut that line? "What's the matter, Prince? Why are you growling? That's just a moderate Democrat."Even as Democrats ape Republicans – producing a platform that lyingly claims Democrats support war with Iraq, the Patriot Act and the defense of America – the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats can't help slipping out: Democrats are not angry about 9-11. Sad, maybe – sad that it didn't happen on Clinton's watch so his legacy would be more than a semen stain. But they're not angry.Indeed, the belle of the ball at the convention is noted patriot Michael Moore, who apparently thinks Americans who voted for George Bush deserved to be killed on 9-11. The day of the attack, Moore wrote this on his Web page: "Many families have been devastated tonight. This is just not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, D.C. and the planes' destination of California – these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!" Perhaps Moore could provide the terrorists with a map of the red states before the next attack.This week, Moore was boasting about how well-received he was by the Democrats in Boston – evidenced by his yukking it up in a sky box with former president Jimmy Carter. He has been hugged by DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe and praised by impeached former president Bill Clinton.Moore's only concession to the Democrats' role-playing is to deny that he is a Democrat, hoping enough Americans were taught by public school teachers that no one will know how to look up Moore's voter registration card. ("Democrat.")Moore says Bush must be defeated because Bush lied about the war in Iraq. Ninety-three percent of the delegates agree with him, saying they oppose the war in Iraq, according to a New York Times-CBS News poll.But the Democrats' candidates for president and vice president both voted for war with Iraq. Their party platform supports the war with Iraq. (Let's just hope wherever the delegates teach, they're not teaching logic.)The only "issues" Democrats dare discuss publicly are the things everyone can agree on: They are for "jobs," a good economy and the middle class. None of their blather ever touches on any issue on which Democrats and Republicans could possibly disagree.The issues on which the parties differ are: pre-emptive attacks on terror-producing nations, gay marriage, gun control, partial-birth abortion, taxes, letting non-citizens and felons vote. But the Democrats won't talk about those issues. This is the Democrats' week to make-believe they are Republicans for the folks watching at home on TV. In the lingo of the delegates, this is "story time."Ann Coulter is a bestselling author and syndicated columnist. Her most recent book is Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.
Wall Street Journal, July 29, 2004 Pg.12
The Kerry Conundrum In his physical bearing, John Kerry is notably Presidential, all angles and definition. It is his political profile that blurs, with shifting votes and elusive convictions. The Democratic nominee's challenge in his acceptance speech tonight is to define his political character and demonstrate that he can be trusted as commander in chief in a post-9/11 world.The Kerry campaign clearly understands this problem, because it has made "strength" and "security" the theme of its convention week. The word "strong" has been repeated so many times that it reminds us of the old joke about the politician who kept calling himself "the issues candidate" so no one would notice that he had no issues.In pitching Mr. Kerry to be commander in chief, his campaign is also stressing the personal. Just as he captained that swift boat in Vietnam, he can lead the country now in dangerous times. Americans can be confident he'll use force against our enemies because he was willing to fight (and kill) in the Mekong Delta. But because he also knows first-hand the horror of war, he will not be as "reckless" as President Bush. "Strength" and "wisdom," as Bill Clinton put it on Monday -- an alluring argument.Yet surely we all know that personal bravery is not the same as political leadership. The doubts about Mr. Kerry concern not his courage but his judgment and conviction, and have been formed as the result of public service that is far longer than his admirable four months in Vietnam. Those doubts are both political and philosophical.On the latter, Mr. Kerry has simply been wrong about the major national security questions of his time. Leaving aside the special case of Vietnam, the Senator voted against nearly every major weapons system during the Cold War. He supported the recklessly naive "nuclear freeze" in 1984. He opposed SDI, which convinced the Soviets they couldn't win an arms race. He even opposed the invasion of Grenada at the time, though he now says that is the kind of operation he would support. In other words, he was a stalwart of the dovish wing of the Democratic Party that voters refused to entrust with the Presidency from Vietnam until the Berlin Wall fell.More recently, Senator Kerry voted against the first Gulf War, arguing that diplomacy was enough to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. This vote strikes us as especially noteworthy now that Kerry supporters are trying to portray him as a foreign policy "realist" in the mold of George H.W. Bush, and in contrast to the current President. Yet when the senior Bush sought to use military force in the U.S. national interest, Mr. Kerry opposed that too.Post-9/11 this is all a political liability, and Mr. Kerry now points to Kosovo, Bosnia and Haiti as examples of military actions he supported. But in political terms they were easier cases. The Democratic Party was solidly in favor, as were many conservatives, including us. The question today is whether and how Mr. Kerry would respond when the intelligence might not be certain, the costs might be high and the U.N. isn't unanimous.Mr. Kerry says that unlike Mr. Bush he'll bring the allies along in support of U.S. action, and it's tempting to believe that a new President could somehow rally the French and Germans back to our side. But this ignores our diverging strategic interests. The French want the U.N. to become a brake on the U.S. "hyperpower," and much of Europe would rather appease Islamic terror than fight it. This won't change merely because Americans elect a new President, and it would be nice to hear Mr. Kerry say he understands this.Then there is his ever-shifting views on Iraq. He voted for the war when that seemed safer politically in October 2002. But then when Howard Dean was on the march in this year's Democratic primaries, the Senator turned into a vociferous war critic and voted against the $87 billion to finish the job in Iraq. Mr. Kerry has an elaborate justification for this vote, but we agree with Senator Joe Biden, a Kerry supporter who described that vote recently to the New Yorker as "tactical" and an attempt "to prove to Dean's guys I'm not a warmonger."Now that he's won the nomination, Mr. Kerry has once again turned moderately hawkish. He assails the President's management of the war but proposes more or less the same policy. We give him credit for saying he won't withdraw abruptly from Iraq and leave a failed state, but he also leads a center-left coalition that will pressure him to do precisely that as costs rise and compete with domestic priorities. All in all, it is hard to resist the conclusion that if John Kerry had been President the last four years, Saddam would still be running Iraq.We have little doubt that a Kerry Administration would pursue Osama bin Laden to the ends of the earth. The doubts run to what he would do in the hard cases when Presidential fortitude and leadership are required. Whatever else they think of Mr. Bush, Americans know he is willing to act in our national defense. They'll be trying to judge tonight, and over the next three months, if they can depend on John Kerry to do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)