Saturday, October 30, 2004


Is John Zogby in the tank for Kerry?

I was greatly dismayed this past spring when I heard that pollster John Zogby say that this race was John Kerry's to lose. First, I had come to respect Zogby's work as a pollster. He has an impressive record predicting elections. Second, because he always seemed fair to Republicans.

After absorbing what Kerry had said I was dismayed for another reason. Making such a prediction so far from the election seems wreckless for a pollster with so much that could happen between then and the election. Given this I had to consider why he would do this and, unfortunately, I had to take into account the fact that his brother is James Zogby. James is President of the Arab American Institute and an outspoken critic of President Bush's Middle East policies. In particular, his support for Israel.

It would be sad if John Zogby was skewing his polls for his brother. Given that Zogby's polls are the only national polls showing Kerry ahead at this point, either he will be a genius or a goat.

Update: Zogby appeared on the Daily Show a few days ago and announced that Kerry was going to win. No equivocation here.

Thursday, October 28, 2004


The year's worst media distortions

A roundup here.


Progressive Circumvention of the US Constitution

Foreign and domestic threats to constitutional govenrment in the US are merging. The Clintons hope to capitalize on this.

This article covers a disturbing speech delivered by Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor at Georgetown Law School. (More here.) From the article:
(O'Connor) said recognizing international law could foster more civilized societies in the United States and abroad. ``International law is a help in our search for a more peaceful world,'' she said.

She goes on to say that "judges would be negligent if they disregarded the growing role of international law in U.S. courts."

The hubris she displays is astonishing, though it is common among judges. Where in the Constitution does it say anything about the role of 'international law' in US courts? What business is it of US courts to 'help in our search' for a more peaceful world? And why does she presume a more peaceful world is necessarily desirable right now? Isn't that a judgement to be made by the American people via their elected representatives? A great many Americans, including our president, certainly don't think this is desirable goal at this particular point in time, though many foreigners clearly disagree. Who's view does she think should prevail?

The conduct of foreign policy is the exclusive province of the executive branch. The courts should butt out. And if Congress or the State legislatures want to incorporate ideas and trends from abroad into American law, that is their prerogative. They are directly accountable to the people. That is the way our system of government was designed, as enshrined in our constitution. As far as the courts are concerned, international opinion should be utterly irrevelant.

But this offends many elites. They see the constitution as inconvenient when it acts as an impediment toward some desired (progressive) goal they have for humanity which, for some unfathomable reason, they believe we should all be working toward; it's a singlular view of a unified world. This is especially true of Democrats, as articulated in a June 2003 Der Spiegel interview with Hillary Clinton:
Praising her husband's close relationship with European leaders during his period in office, Clinton declared that "for eight years we were on the right course to a globalized and integrated world - which is coming, one way or the other."

Clinton publicly revealed the foreign policy thrust of the Democratic Party in a remarkable moment of candor, a position Democratic leaders have not made clear to the public, but which is keenly understood and supported by Clinton.

Not only is a "globalized and integrated world" inevitable, it is a foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party.

According to Clinton, a single, unified world "is a perspective we Democrats have not successfully made clear."

As this election (regardless of the outcome) has demonstrated, it is clear that a great many Democrats have concluded the American political system no longer works for them. It has become obvious that their ideology is an electoral loser. This is why they have sought to circumvent the democratic process by using the courts to try to advance their agenda. In similar fashion, they have begun looking to international organizations dominated by their ideological soulmates to form political alliances, a trend welcomed by the much of the world. In this way, the fight over the Iraq war is a portent of the future.

The Clintons have spent the past eight years (at least) preparing to take advantage of this situation. Their joint aspiration is to become the most powerful political duo in world history. Together they have created a substantial domestic and international political following and established a safe power base in Hillarly's US Senate seat. Bill has cultivated an image, rooted in his actions as US President, of a successful American leader foreign governments can trust. The idea is to create a coalition of internationalist elites and disaffected Democrats which, when combined with the support of foreign governments that view the Clintons as the perfect anecdote to the frightful American electorate, can give Bill the political support necessary to become, functionally, President of the World.

Ideally, this would be achieved through a Hillary Presidency, though it could still be very effective in practice if Bill were to assume world power while Hillary is a leading figure in the US Senate. There are any mumber of ways they could try to accomplish this. It is a frightening prospect: An American (or two?) more powerful than the president with limited constitutional constraints on his/her (their) exercise of power.

The US Constitution is responsible for unprecedented power and prosperity we've achieved as a nation. It is our ultimate source of strength. But there is an ever growing list of constituencies - from internationalists who resent the role it plays as a bulwark against their influence here, to foreign govenments who see America's increasing power as a threat, to our own domestic elites who see it as an antiquated constraint on progressive policies - who want to establish mechanisms to circumvent our Constitution or ignore it outright. It is an existential threat to our nation. Even if the Clinton's ambitions are frustrated, this problem isn't going to disappear any time soon. One way or another, it is likely to get much, much worse.


Russia took the HMX,RDX?

If this Washington Times story is true, it is huge. The opening paragraph is a shocker:

Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.

I also like the last paragraph for its pure innocent but damning tone:

Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

Meanwhile at NRO's The Corner a reader comments:

Just caught your quick note on The Corner. The Gertz story is absolutely huge. The information it reveals is incredibly well documented, and investigated. This obviously has absolutely incredible international implications that make the current election a sideshow. The only question is to what level we are willing to support what has already been released. Russia will deny everything of course, and if we fail to offer the proof we hold, the Bush administration will look insane. I can only believe this was thought out in advance, and that Shaw didn't let this info out on his own. Because much of it is (was) very classified, I can't believe he is acting on his own. Especially since he's allowed himself to be sourced. This is the start of the answer to a LOT of open questions concerning our operations in Iraq. I have to wonder exactly who slipped the little note to CBS and the NYT's. Their cooperation and Kerry's absolute face plant into the "missing" explosives story is the perfect lead in to revealing the whereabouts of Iraqi WMD, without making it seem like the Bush/Cheney campaign intentionally sprung an October surprise. If Bush is a good poker player, he is an even better chess player.

Indeed... I guess the Dems are right about Karl Rove, he IS a genius!

BTW, I wonder if any of our Russian readers can comment on this. Or is that sort of thing still too dangerous?

Update: Michelle Malkin has good coverage and follow-up.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004


Added a couple links

With the elections barelling down on us I thought I'd add a couple sidebar links to popular polling sites. Check 'em out!


The Dem's door knockers

it finally happened. For the first time ever a political advocate knocked on my door to ask for support and $ for his candidate. Unfortunately the young man was a democrat. He cheerily launched into his routine about trying to get George Bush out of office. At that point I asked him why do we want Bush out of office? BLANK STARE. The guy froze like a deer in the headlights, he had nothing to say, apparently never had to answer that question before. I let him stew in his own silence for a few seconds, then, out of pity, I broke the silence by asking him if he really liked Kerry or just hated Bush. He said he likes Kerry "well enough" but that Bush is the real problem. Just as I suspected... He finally regained composure and continued with his rehearsed description of the dem's get out the vote efforts in swing states and asked for $ for support.

I gotta give him credit for chutzpa for asking for my donation after I made it clear that I wasn't interested in helping his cause. He was polite enough but his lack of enthusiasm for Kerry spoke volumes.

Tuesday, October 26, 2004


Saudi View of France's Involvement in the Intl. Conf. On Iraq

I find interesting since it is a direct view into the Saudi monarchy's (simple) attempts at spin, crowd control, and most recently, reform. It comes through especially transparently in the editorials, which makes them entertaining to read.

An article published today portrays France's activities leading up to the November international conference on Iraq as pure obstructionism.

This of course is no surprise, but what IS revealing is that the article got published in at all. Like Russia's Pravda in the old days, Arab News is a mouthpiece for the Saudi government and nothing gets published without the rulers' approval. The Saudi rulers speak out of both sides of their mouths - one thing gets said to the Western world, another to Saudi citizens. Up until recently, the spin on most articles dealing with Iraq tried to paint America in a bad light so as to align the monarchy with the Arab "street" opinion and reduce internal tensions. But recently I've noticed that they've begun to tone down the anti-US rhetoric aimed at their own citizens, as this article demonstrates.

I'm stumped as to why they are switching tracks now - especially when they were just asked over the weekend to forgive $50B in Iraqi debt, which should make the US pretty unpopular.

Is it...

- To improve Bush's standings among Arabs (and US Arabs) before the election by trashing Kerry's "ally"?
- To ingratiate themselves with the U.S. before contracts are doled out at the conference?
- Worry that officially recognizing rebel groups in Iraq will encourage the terrorists in Saudi Arabia?
- Threats from the US?
- Part of their PR campaign to rebuild relationships with the US? (Public Relations is a separate but highly entertaining topic that constantly surfaces on this web site.)

Other thoughts?


Saturday, October 23, 2004


After the California Elections, Atlas May Shrug

I'm watching TV this morning and an ad comes on for Ballot Proposition 72. This referendum would require all California businesses of more than 20 employees to provide at least 80% of their employees' health care coverage, or contribute the equivalent monies to a state administered care program. State agencies would have to raise their levels of coverage to the 80% level - costing hundreds of millions of dollars, and companies fleeing California would lead to at least hundeds of millions more in reduced tax revenue (both numbers estimated by the California Attorney General).

So back to the ad: The voiceover at the end of the commercial says, "Prop 72. Make businesses pay for health care so you don't have to."

Are people really *that* uneducated to believe that simply pushing costs onto private enterprise is a viable solution to this or any problem? Anyone who's read Ayn Rand will be getting verrry scared right about now.

And to top it off, Massachusetts is running ads trying to get businesses to relocate there. If Taxachusetts has a more favorable business environment than California, the high tech boom will not return to this state.


Meltdown of Kerry hack O'Donnell

I read about Lawrence O'Donnell's meltdown on MSNBC's Scarborough Country here. But you really, really gotta watch the video clip to appreciate it. It's mind blowing, an astonishingly crass display by a very desperate Kerry supporter. The man is totally unhinged, you gotta watch it.

Friday, October 22, 2004


Collapse of Australian democracy!

Here's a pretty good satire on the NYT interpretation of John Howard's re-election.

Thursday, October 21, 2004


Clinton's Ambition

Like everything else, US national security needs were subordinate to Clinton's personal political ambitions. Clinton used his final years in office to establish his internationalist credentials and to build an international political base for himself from which he could launch a bid for SG of the UN. (He continued to do this his first year out of office.) The fundraising shenanigans and technology transfers involving the Chinese, the Kyoto Treaty, the ICC, ect. only make sense when considered in this context.


Smart children vote for Bush

Yesterday's Best of the Web on Opinionjournal had a couple items worth reading. But most interesting to me was the comparison of the mock elections held by Scholastic books and Nickelodeon. In Nickelodeon's "Kid's Vote" Kerry won 57% to 43%. But in Scholastic's mock vote Bush won with 52%. So kids who watch TV want Kerry , most likely b/c their parents want Kerry, while kids from households where reading is a priority, reflecting their parents' leanings, vote for Bush.

This press release from Scholastic points out that its mock elections have predicted the winner in every race since 1940 except for Dewey/Truman and Nixon/Kennedy.


British invasion of Clark Co., Ohio backfires

Read the Telegraph's account. Damn I love midwesterners!


Iran Concedes US A Tactical Victory?

If true, this is a strange development.


I'm not fan of Bill Clinton...

but this shows such a reckless negligence of our national security that I'm not sure I believe it, yet. Jack Cashill has put together a DVD documentary (why DVD? You mean 'Frontline' or CBS wouldn't air it?) detailing (among other things) evidence that the Atlanta Olympics Centennial Park bombing was done by Muslim terrorists. While I easily believe that theory, even I find it difficult to believe the even a low life scum like Clinton would gloss over this in order to preserve the veneer of a happy and safe USA (to ease his re-election). And instead hound the hapless Richard Jewell as the designated scape goat. Stunning to contemplate.

(Of course our loony leftist pro-Kerry readers will be screaming now that GWB is doing something equally negligent and evil with regard to Iraq.)

What do ya'll know of this Cashill guy. The reviews of his books on Amazon (here and here) are mostly very positive with a few accusations of 'right wing conspiracy theorist.'

Wednesday, October 20, 2004


For all you fans of gov't run health care...

the WSJ ran an opinion piece (link probably requires subscription) discussing this year's installment of the Fraser Report, a Vancouver based group's assement of waiting times at Canadian Hospitals.

Under Canada's government-run health-care monopoly, Fraser reports that the average wait for hospital treatment is 17.9 weeks. That's the average over 12 specialties and 10 provinces. To take just one example, the projected wait for hip-replacement surgery in British Columbia is 52 weeks. "These waiting times are the longest that Canadians have ever experienced," notes Fraser's senior health policy analyst, Nadeem Esmail. And "they exist despite record levels of health spending."

The waiting times have fueled Canada's growing gray market in health care. Patients seeking to avoid the pain or inconvenience of long waits increasingly seek treatment in private clinics. (This in part explains why the B.C. Health Ministry finds the actual median wait for a hip replacement is "only" 22 weeks.) Paying a private clinic for a hip replacement or a cataract operation isn't always strictly legal -- there are laws limiting the treatment private clinics may provide -- but the government understands the political expediency of looking the other way.

The government itself uses private clinics for Royal Canadian Mounted Police, provincial workman's compensation cases and prison inmates. Thus the Canadian joke about the prisoner who asks his cellmate, "What are you in for?" Answer: "Hip replacement." If all else fails, there's always the American option. Timely Medical Alternatives, a private company in Vancouver, contracts with hospitals south of the border to care for Canadian patients.

Tuesday, October 19, 2004


Revolutionary War Unnecessary?

Thespoonsexperience highlights this answer Jimmy Carter gave in response to a Chris Mathews question about the Revolutionary War.


An Oil-For-Food Indictment?

The Guardian reports that prosecutors are preparing charges against Benon Sevan, the former head of the UN Oil for Food Program. It this is true, and he is indicted, this will have enormous diplomatic and political ramifications for the US.

It will be facinating to watch how Democrats and career diplomats react. Will they accuse Bush of attempting to exact revenge? Or of deflecting attention from his 'failed' Iraq policy? What will the French say? The Russians? How will Annan react? Does his son face any criminal liabilities? Can we recover any of the money? Are the rumors that Marc Rich played an important role in this scam true?

Very interesting, if it is true.

Monday, October 18, 2004


Ohioans respond.

Here's a link to the Guardian's follow-up to their attempts to influence US elections (as JohnO originally alerted to).


What's the deal with 'port security'?

It seems Kerry sees a weak spot in the war on terror by attacking Bush for not making our ports more secure. What's ya'lls take on that? Is Kerry going for the 'port vote' predominant in battleground (NOT!) states of NJ, NY and CA? Maybe it will swing the FL vote. This arguments sounds like nitpicking to me. In a sense it is also praising Bush's success b/c the only think Kerry et al can complain about regarding the WOT is this obscure port issue.

PS: WOW! I'm listening to Richard Holbrooke spin an absolutely incredible ('incredible' as in 'unbelievable') attack against Bush and his policies and pro Kerry. Holbrooke has become another one of the zombies who believe that by repeating a lie often enough it will become truth.


Can We Trust Our Allies?

Was this it the result of corruption among NATO's ranks? Or something much, much worse?

Sunday, October 17, 2004


French Whine

The French political establishment is incensed that the Duelfer Report contains the names of non-Americans implicated in the Oil-for-Food shenanigans and that the repeated denials of wrong doing issued by those named are omitted. It is interesting to note that the French ambassador doesn't even try (in this or any other news report I've seen) to refute the main charges the report levys against his counrty or to deny their substance. He just whines about the effect these allegations (revelations?) are having on France, while threatening renewed French diplomatic intransigence.

Only a moron could propose trying to repair our relationship with France by altering US behavior. France, by it's own choice, has obviously been an enemy nation for some time. It is out in the open now. We should simply acknowledge it (though Kerry and most Democrats seems incapable of this) and begin to act accordingly.

Bye the way, I love the last paragraph of the NY Times News Service article. No bias there.


Kerry's Post Debate Momentum

Is it an illusion?

DenBeste thinks the media have deliberately crafted their reporting of polling data to create the impression that Kerry has gained momentum recently. Interesting.


Iran Says No Deal

Under any circumstances.

Iran will enrich uranium. Period. Bush has called Iran's nuclear ambition "unacceptable." Is a late November showdown in the UNSC looming, or are the Europeans bluffing, hoping Kerry wins and/or the election won't be settled by then?

Saturday, October 16, 2004


The BBC Sticks It's Nose In

Terrorism is a myth? Unbelievable.

Thursday, October 14, 2004


Ignorant Arrogance

Reporters think something is better than nothing.

This PBS Newshour segment about media coverage of Iraq is instructive. The shallow, shortsighted nature of these men is almost unbelievable.

Their point of reference is just after the invasion, and they say things are clearly getting worse. But how are things now compared to when Saddam was in power? They say that since it is almost impossible to see all of Iraq, one only sees the one side, the implication being that it is the the US side. But Rooney admits the terrorists are "somewhat" responsible for setting the agenda. Which is it? They acknowledge that Americn actions may actually diffusing the situation, but they don't know. As far as I can tell, most reporting is utterly devoid of this notion.

They freely admit their work lacks thoroughness, immediacy and detail. They are knowlingly imparting a badly distorted impression in collective mind of the American public and they are shockingly insouciant about doing so. How arrogant! Anyone with an ounce of common sense should realize that on an issue this important reporters should accurately report the truth - or nothing at all.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004


More insulting and uncreative attacks

I'm sure we've all heard about the "Voting for Bush is like running in the special olympics..." poster by now. Michelle Malkin also exposes a purely racist cartoon by Danziger (note: updated links). How can the dems and liberals consider themselves serious participants in modern political discourse when they serve up this hate mongering drivel.

More seriously I think these things are a sign of a larger problem with the Democratic party, namely a complete and utter lack of creativity. We all learned in grade school that racial slanders tell more about the slurrer than the subject of the slur. If you have a personal grievance with another than a racial attack just shows how uncreative and inarticulate you are. That's Danziger and that's the modern Democratic party.

Update: the offensive cartoon in question has mysteriously disappeared from Danziger's site. But it can still be found here.


When Bush wins, how bad is it going to get?

John Howard's win in Australia was beyond expectations. This is what I expect in this coming US election. Anybody who has lived through a few Presidential elections in the America knows that the polls and the press tend to underestimate Republican strength. So what can we learn from the Howard victory? That the moonbats are not going to take it well. (Warning, not for the faint of heart)


But it gets better, this tirade is from the very leftist Pacifica radio network. (Courtesy When you open the link let it download and then skip ahead until about 38 minutes into the show. Feel the hate, remember it. This election is going to be brutal if it is close. But I am fairly confident it won't be.

Radio Aneurysm

Tuesday, October 12, 2004


The Guardian Sticks Its' Nose In

If this isn't illegal, it should be.


Another Celebrity Campaigns for Kerry

Substance vs style in Florida

From the South Florida Sun Sentinel:

Last week, former New York Mayor Ed Koch was in Palm Beach County to whip up Jewish voters on behalf of Bush, and attracted hundreds to his speech.

Democrats brought in their own non-Florida Jewish celebrity last week: Jon Bauman.

He was "Bowzer," the singer dressed in black as the doo-wop group Sha Na Na sang 1950s hits during the '60s through the early '80s.

Bauman's solo act tours nationally.

He cleared his schedule to spend October in South Florida on behalf of Kerry.

"I'm Jewish, which is kind of a qualification because you understand the issues involving Israel," he said.

"My notoriety gives me a shred of advantage in getting some attention," he said.

Bauman's quote is emblematic of how much value Democrats place on celebrity and how warped their values are. But read the whole article. It is interesting.


What would Zarqawi be doing if he weren't in Iraq?

Dennis Prager has a good question for John Kerry.


Germany Offers Conditions for Joining the Coalition in Iraq

While offering unconditional support for John Kerry.

So, Germany might deploy troops to Iraq after all, just not any time soon. Only if "conditions" there change. But what conditions? When the security conditions change after Iraqi elections are successfully held, and the situation there becomes less dangerous? Or the US changes the conditions under which firms are allowed to bid on reconstruction contracts?

Clearly, the German government is eagerly anticipating a Kerry presidency, so they can attend his promised "international conference" on Iraq, where cynical non-coalition countries like Germany can all stick their hands out. And then deploy some troops to Iraq just when we are on the verge of success, thus sharing some the glory.

Kerry has called the US led coalition in Iraq "coerced and bribed." What would his be called - a coalition of the cynical, the greedy and the cowardly? For succinctness, just call it the UN.

Monday, October 11, 2004



Perhaps I was too charitable in characterizing Kerry as backward looking. Though he frames his arguments and positions this way, he is really delusional. And the Democrats are deluding themselves if they believe someone who thinks this way is fit to be President.

This Instapundit post offers several differing viewpoints.


Quick links

just thought I'd chime in with a few quick links.:

this is a great read about the significance of our upcoming election, a very skilled writer paints an excellect mental picture of what's at stake.

A post at this interesting blog, the first post on 08Oct04 titled "Listen America" is great. Thoughtful and inspiring commentary from someone in the thick of things.

Also, let's not let the significance of the recent Austalian elections escape us. Belmont Club has a good follow-up. My interest in John Howard's re-election was heightened after reading this post. (note: I can't link to the post, when I went back to the site to link to it I found this:

"This page is down due to an untrustworthy leftist scumbag whom I (mistakenly) thought could be trusted to contribute to debate fairly and decently.Access passwords were given out to other scumbags, and the site cache deleted.The site will return as soon as (whatever is left) is restored.- Mike Jericho (Man with firearms and a short temper)"
...damn leftist scumbags.) Anyway, I like his site and it's worth reading from time to time.

Sunday, October 10, 2004


Duelfer Report

I also heard this today. Unsurprisingly, the media are focusing hardest on the fact no WMDs were found in Iraq rather than on Saddam's intent to reconstitute his WMD programs, the crumbling UN sanctions regime or the Oil-For-Food bribery revelations.

It is simply premature to state with any degree of certainty that Iraq had no WMD. After all, China still finds Japanese chemical weapons caches dating from WWII. But if the media thinks it makes Bush look bad...

Michael Barone thinks the report makes a good case for war. It's too bad Bush didn't forcefully emphasize this during Friday's debate. Posted by Hello


Jacques Chirac wants your money

Visit to Viet Nam
President Chirac 's discussion with young Vietnamese at the French cultural Center ( Hanoi ). Hanoi, October 7, 2004

That is the headline to a press release in which French President Chirac made his views known regarding US cutural hegemony. In case you missed it, " we're waging a sort of battle against American theses that, given the financial backing they enjoy, can impose themselves without State assistance." In other words, American culture is popular so they don't gov't backing.

What you might have missed in the discussion of this little tidbit was Chirac's call for global redistribution of wealth.

We are currently waging a major battle. I am particularly happy to note that two weeks ago in New York, a meeting was held at the initiative of Chile, Brazil, Spain and France that enabled us to adopt for the very first time a declaration, a commitment signed by 120 countries, which is considerable. I'm stressing this fact because I believe that the consciousness displayed at the UN, 120 countries all saying the same thing for the first time, will create a force that the United States is alone in opposing. But it won't be able to resist. The U.S. can resist 10 or 15 countries but not an internationalmovement of 120 countries that are joining together to say: Enough. There must be a better distribution of wealth
in the world, there must be a sense of necessity, of the fight against poverty...

Nice of the US to host this gathering of looters. Do we need more evidence that France has slipped into the enemy column?

Wednesday, October 06, 2004


Summary of anti-Michael Moore movies

There are three documentaries coming out in short order concerning Michael Moore and/or Fahrenheit 9/11. Two are direct rebuttals to Moore's attacumentory and one is a more lighthearted look at Moore.

Michael Moore Hates America

This film's subtitle is "A documentary that tells the truth about a great nation." It is solely the project of the director, Michael Wilson. From the trailer and from reading Wilson's description of the film, the film is trying to rebut all of Moore's work by showing how Moore has distorted American life. The subtext of the movie is Wilson's attempt to corner Moore into an interview. This idea being copied from Moore's first film, "Roger and Me". It looks to be amusing and I greatly look forward to seeing this. Wilson has an interview with Penn Jillette which looks very interesting.

Celsius 41.11

This, like the next film Fahrenhype 9/11, is a direct response to Moore's F 9/11. I noticed some footage that comes directly from the website. Good footage that was shot at protest marches that the guys from protestwarrior had surreptitiously filmed or directly crashed with their own homemade signs. (I own several of their t-shirts which are products of their signs, my favorite being "Hey France, why don't you shut the hell up, we'll protect civilization") All the irrational anger caught on film. You can see this video at the protestwarrior website but I am interested to see how it is used in the context of this film. This movie, like Wilson's will be shown in Theaters. I think it is a mistake to try and get a movie like this into theaters because its impact will be diminished after the election. Wilson's film is more timeless in the sense that it covers Moore's body of work and will serve as a reminder of what Michael Moore represents.

FahrenHYPE 9/11

This looks to be the slicker of the the two F 9/11 rebuttals. They also have already released the film on DVD via The film is narrated by Dick Morris (the political operative and Clinton nemesis) and includes many interviews with Moore critics David Frum, Dave Kopel, David Hardy and Jason Clarke. Foreign policy expertise from Frank Gaffney and Steven Emerson. It looks to be a very deep critique. Interviews with Zell Miller and Ed Koch promise to be especially entertaining. And it has the virtue of being available to the public 10 days before Fahrenheit 9/11.

Check out all of these websites and look at the trailers. I have a feeling Moore will soon reach his nadir. Moore's formula has been a strong dose of ridicule reinforced with selective editing. We will see if he stands up to the "Moore treatment".

Sunday, October 03, 2004


Quote: This shows the need for a complete review of the UN.

So says Claude Hankes-Drielsma, an Iraqi government adviser, in a devastating report in the London Times. (Of course by 'devastating' I mean 'devastating to anyone with half a brain.' The desperate UN apologists will continue to concoct innumerable incoherent excuses on the UN's behalf.) The Times report discusses an Iraqi interim gov't report that was researched by KPMG and some fancy London law firm, in it Russia, France, China and high-ranking UN officials are implicated in bribery in the oil-for-food scandal. Read it, it's juicy!


Original photo courtesy of Posted by Hello

Saturday, October 02, 2004


Why Bush is going to win big, the loony left

There are more than a few on the left who see the GWoT as another imperialistic chapter in AmeriKa's sordid history. Thank goodness, there are some on the left who do not. Christopher Hitchens, formerly of the Nation magazine, has done more and sacrificed most in this battle for the intellectual high ground on the left. Like a the former fellow traveler, David Horowitz, Hitchens has used his knowledge of the leftist mindset to great use in his critique of the anti-war position. I should say that Hitchens has not completely abandoned his leftist leanings to his credit and, I think, adding to his credibility.

This article is a follow up to a previous attempt to explain why the left should support Sadr (Bring Najaf to New York, The Nation). In my arguments with those on the left I sometimes run into assumptions which I find incredible. If I thought that our purposes in Iraq were to steal their oil or subjugate the people, do they think I would support this? Do they think I am so stupid as to be blind to such a policy if it were in place? Well, we know that answer to that question.

This is why Sadr is being hunted--not because he is a threat to women's rights but because he is the single greatest threat to US military and economic control of Iraq. Even after Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani backed down from his opposition to the handover plans, fearing civil war, Sadr continued to oppose the US-drafted Constitution, continued to call for the withdrawal of foreign troops and continued to oppose US plans to appoint the interim government rather than hold elections. If Sadr's demands are met and the country's fate is truly left in the hands of the majority, US military bases in Iraq will be in serious jeopardy, as will all the privatization-friendly laws pushed through by Bremer.
Of course, events have a way of outrunning ideology.
All this leaves us with one question, which ideology are the majority of Americans going to support? I thought so. And there are enough Democrats who know that the moonbats are nuts and that they will have another shot at it in 4 years. The loud thud you hear on November 3rd will be this reality landing on the millions of loony leftists who thought they were a majority.

Friday, October 01, 2004


Libya wants permanent UN Sec council seat

Maybe we should just give Libya ours.


Post debate?

Hey Guys,
I missed the debate last night; Disney's "Kim Possible" took precedence on the family TV. I've been reading up on the post debate analysis in Kerry Spot and on Powerline and here's what I'm hearing:

Kerry looked very good, presented himself well, didn't look creepy, spoke strongly

Bush wasn't as strong as he could have been, he could have made better points against Kerry but didn't hit them during the debate. ( although today he finally came up with a zinger against Kerry saying his misspeaking regarding Iraq war is not as bad as Bush's mis-leading into war. Bush said today that it isn't Kerry's misspeaking that was the problem, it was his voting that's questionable. Good one George, but a day late.)

Kerry's positions STILL are not clear even though he continues to insist that his position on Iraq has been consistent.

It seems that Kerry continues to issue self contradictory points, even during a single debate, but it's not clear that Joe Six-Pack watching this thing would have picked up on this.

So my own impressions from these analyses are that the Republicans are disappointed that Bush didn't put it away last night. The dems are pretending to be excited, Kerry's performance could have strongly energized his base but I think the initial post-debate euphoria is fading for the dems. They are beginning to see that Kerry's substance was week even though his style was much better than anyone really expected.

How's this going to play to Peoria? Hard to say. Does the average undecided guy know about or care about JFKerry's flip-flops? Does such a voter appreciate the sophistication of JFKerry's 'nuanced' opinions? Also, Kerry made absurd but confident claims about having been consistent on Iraq. Does the average guy believe this or does he believe the Bush ad's depicting Kerry as a flip-flopper on Iraq?

The blogs are claiming that Bush appeared decisive and resolute. If 'undecided' felt that way then I would think such an impression is important for voters concerned about the war. I really don't think anyone other than partisan dems takes Kerry seriously when he claims to have better plans on Iraq. Those claims just ain't gonna play in Peoria.

Also, a major electoral dynamic this year is the women's vote swinging toward the GOP. A decisive and resolute demeaner will help with the "security mom" vote also. A Powerline guy is writing that he's getting lot's of pro-Bush feedback from women.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?