Kerry and the Middle East

This thesis puts "to paper" thoughts I don't think I've ever clearly articulated. Before 9/11, I would have considered myself a moderate independent voter. After those two planes went over my head and into the towers, national security became my instant and overriding concern.

Democrats just don't get it. The are isolationists at best, and appeasers at worst. Either way, their political philosophies are making my world a more dangerous place.

I want a safer world for my family. I don't care if the French and Germans like me; I'd much rather they say they hate me, than say I was a nice guy. Screw them.

What makes kissing French asses more important than keeping my family alive? That's my question for John Kerry.

Until the Democrats can prove they care more about saving American lives than trying to be the "popular kid" on teh world stage, I'll vote for the party that understands the fight we are in.

That's why last week I went and registered as a Republican.

I want to live.

John Kerry is, of course and IMO, a fraud with respect to his military service. By Nov 2, he will be exposed as the fraud that he is. Americans will not leave their country in the hands of this phony and a trial lawyer who got rich on lies.

Kerry stated that if attacked, we will respond unequivocally. IOWs, we have to get our ass kicked one more time before he takes action. Ask any Israeli: you attck terrorism, you do not respond to it.

Delenda est.

Bob
It seems to me, senator Kerry has made a different point.

He said nothing about caving in or appeasing terrorists. He just made it clear that president Bush has been stacking up evidence for going to war in Iraq. In his turn, Kerry is going to open up the truth.

He went on to say we should be kind of more selective in targeting our enemies, that's more like his agenda.

In the world of political correctness, too much also remains unsaid, doesn't it?

Thanks you very much Robert, and Bob and Killshot.

I decided a long time ago that I will vote for the candidate who takes the strongest stand against Islamic terrorists.This is about life and death and that is why I will be voting for a Republican for the first time in my life this November.

I watched The Beltway Boys on Foxnews yesterday and according to the "boys" the Republicans have been circulating "devastating" footage on Kerry in connection with his various stands on the Iraq war.They also mentioned a quote from a Kerry staffer in a recent New Yorker article in which the staffer said that Kerry voted against the $87 bil for Iraq because Howard Dean was winning the anti-War vote.So you have a would be commander in chief (John Kerry) who was willing to sell out American soldiers at war for political expediency. To me that is appalling.

John the "phoney war hero" Kerry and John the "ambulance chasing " Edwards would be a recipe for disaster in battle aganist Islamo-fascism.

The following is an excerpt taken from,Kerry Courts Disaster In Iran posted at Frontpage magazine.com 7/27/04

". . . The very regime that Kerry demands we engage, after all, has just been certified as an Al Qaeda sanctuary--and by the very commission in which the Kerry campaign has invested so much hope. The report's finding, moreover, counts as only one of Teheran's sins. Lately its theocrats have been wreaking havoc in Iraq and Afghanistan, aiding America's foes along Iran's borders in the hopes of expanding their influence in both countries, even as they continue to fund Palestinian terror groups. Then, too, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has amassed a mountain of evidence pointing to Iranian violations of the Nonproliferation Treaty. With two nuclear power plants slated to go online in Iran, and IAEA inspectors stumbling across designs for sophisticated centrifuges, even the Europeans and the United Nations have nearly exhausted their efforts to engage the Islamic Republic."

'So you have a would be commander in chief (John Kerry) who was willing to sell out American soldiers at war for political expediency. To me that is appalling.'

Posted by: Roxane at August 1, 2004 12:34 PM

You ain't seen Nothing yet, Roxane, I hate to say.

If and when Kerry takes office, policies will begin to go into effect that will essentially turn our military over to the UN, to be used where and when they please- and WE will have no say in it. It might take a year or two but I will bet he would try it.

That's my thinking, anyway. I hope very much it is Wrong. But if it isn't... Kerry will still be able to claim that HE was and is not the one putting our men and women in harm's way.

KeithJoy, your thinking on this, Please?

Here is an other revelation about John Kerry and the Democratic Party.

Those "anti-terrorist" Democrats invited Jihad TV to the DNC.

If anyone is still undecided about which party should be in the White House, I hope this brings you to your senses.

The Democrats Embrace Al-Jazeera
By Thomas Ryan
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 30, 2004

Excerpts, the full article is at the website

"Despite Democratic Presidential Nominee John Kerry’s assertion that as President, he would “use every available resource to destroy terrorists and deny them sanctuary…and new recruits,” one of the invited guests at the now-concluded Democratic National Convention was an organization that has served as a terrorist recruitment tool, a communications conduit for al-Qaeda in general and Osama bin Laden in particular. This network has repeatedly described Palestinian suicide-bombers as “martyrs.” High above the platform and the sea of “Kerry-Edwards” placards, covering the convention from a skybox towering over the Fleet Center floor was Arabic network al-Jazeera, the Arab satellite news agency whose allegedly “factual and accurate” news coverage has been blatantly anti-American. The Democrats were at least savvy enough to remove the network’s banner, which had been strategically placed near the speakers’ podium. But how could any candidate or political party “serious” about terrorism make no fuss about allowing such a news group inside its convention?"

"The simple fact that al-Jazeera was embraced by the Democratic National Convention – and more importantly, that the feelings were mutual – speaks volumes about which party the terrorists and their partisans in the Arab media would rather see in power".

"This also sends a clear signal to terrorists. Although many have feared terrorists would strike one of this summer’s political conventions, the Democratic Party allowed Jihad TV, a network whose media roster occasionally includes terrorists, into a skybox overlooking the entire Fleet Center. From al-Jazeera’s coverage, the terrorists back home were able to see the party’s attack on the War on Terrorism, especially in Jimmy Carter and Al Sharpton’s demagogic remarks".

"John Kerry has said, “As president, I will not rest until I can look into the eyes of the American people who want a future of freedom and security, and say ‘We are as safe as we can be.’” It wasn’t only the eyes of the American people that Kerry has looked into, but also the lens of an al-Jazeera camera, a camera that has pervasively portrayed the United States as the evil antagonist, and global terrorists as the guiltless victims, but which has subsequently portrayed Kerry as a more agreeable figure than the current incumbent".

John Kerry and the Democratic Party failed this terror test.

The 9/11 commission report blasted congress for failure to oversee the US intelligence agencies, John Kerry served on the Senate intelligence committee for 8 years.Republican's have been all over the cable news networks today exposing Kerry record while on that committee. John Kerry who says he's ready to be commander in chief missed 38 of 47 meetings of the intelligence committee.Kerry who's busy criticizing Pres Bush couldn't bother to show up for Senate intelligence committee meettings.The years when Kerry served on this committee (and was absent from most meettings) are the years Al Qeada was busy building their infrastructure.The lame excuse by dem spin masters for Kerry's poor attendance record is that Dems want to look to the
future (except when it comes to Kerry 4 months in Vietnam) rather then looking to the past.But Americans are not stupid, CNN newest poll shows Bush ahead of Kerry. Newsweeks poll shows that Kerry received only a 2 point post convention bounce the lowest in history. Here's what Victor Davis Hanson had to say in a recent column.

Intellectuals hate Bush for his action and failure to consult 1,000 different nuanced talking heads, but most Americans, when they get into that booth in November, are going to ask themselves one question: “does Osama bin Laden and the terrorist sympathizers want Bush or Kerry to win this election?”— and vote accordingly

BUSH/CHENEY 2004

If you don't like what Kerry says, wait a few minutes, and he'll say something opposite.

Kerry doesn't even know when he's shooting himself in the foot.
During his rant about how much of a hero he is,I couldn't believe the Democrates cheering after he admitted to seeing war crimes and atrocities in Vietnam and waited to exploit that after he returned to the USA from the Nam.
Is this the guy you want to be having insight to pending terrorist threats or even atrocities that he'll keep hidden until it's exploitible.

The PBY story sounds heroic,but I would have reduced my profile and moved in so close the enemy couldn't use powerful weapons. Re-writing history is more romantic when emotion is replacing the normal reactions to a survival decission.
Sometimes the disaster creates the answers to
reacting.A plane that loses power from one engine
makes you adjust to your new limits,the fire in another engine forces you to shut it down,now you lose altitude and look for a place to land,but if a fuel fire starts in the plane you grab the parachute and bail out since landing is no longer an option.
Sure I could make the story heroic,but the action were already made by the crisis that unfolded.
Kerry may have saved lives but was it the only real outcome under those condition.Kerry chose to supress the war crimes and atrocities,the PBY story doesn't negate the human costs to all those that died from his silence during and after his tour of duty.

Remember,Kerry's a fan of M.Moore,Moore's 9/11 film chastises BUSH for not denying Arabs and Muslim the right to leave the USA after the attack.
Does Kerry support internment camps for Arabs and Muslims until they prove their not guilty?

I've been reading post here for the last several months, and I just want to say that John Kerry scares the Hell out of me, he's exactly what the terroist want, with him in there he well sell the United States out just to have the approval from the rest of the world, and he won't care what happens to the people of the USA, I'm a re-election team member for the Bush/Cheney team, and I want to applaude and give a very sincere Thank You to Bob and Roxane for registering with the Republican Party, and one of my jobs as a volunteer for the Bush/Chency ticket Is to reach out and encourage people to vote Republican, and I would like each and every one of you to talk to people and to encourage them to vote for Bush/Cheney, this is a very important election and we need to do all that we can to keep Scary Kerry out of office.

Important reading about the "real" Democratic Party and John Kerry.

The Biggest Liar of Them All
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 30, 2004

Now we can understand why Democrats spent the last year attacking the President as someone who lied to take America into an unnecessary war and destroy brave young American lives for his corporate friends in Texas. They did it to disarm and anesthetize us, to deconstruct the very idea of what truth is or what a fact is or what is is -- and prepare us for the most shameless charade in political memory, the phoniest convention for the phoniest party ever to mount an American electoral stage.

In Boston the Democrats -- the party of Al Sharpton, Jimmy Carter, Teddy Kennedy and Michael Moore -- presented themselves as the party of patriotism and military glory and American military strength, and John Kerry as a man whose life has been one long preparation to be commander-in-chief. "I am John Kerry," he saluted his audience to begin his convention speech, "reporting for duty." Pardon me while I hurl. This is a man who came back from Vietnam to stab not only his country but his comrades-in-arms in the back. This is a man who to this very day has an honored place in the Communist enemy's "War Crimes Museum" -- that's American war crimes. This is a party and a wannabe commander in chief that has clamored and voted to oppose America's wars in Vietnam, the Persian Gulf and in Iraq. This is a party and a commander in chief that lent comfort and aid to Communist dictators in Central America during the last years of the Cold War and nearly brought the Reagan presidency down for attempting to oppose the Communist tide.

This is a man and a party that voted to cut America's military and its intelligence services year after year, a man and a party who refused to institute 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 Baghdad was liberated, that has embraced the reprehensible traitor Michael Moore, and the antiwar left of the Dean campaign, that has spread monstrous lies about its commander in chief and and in doing so undermined the nation's credibility and defenses. If another terrorist state were to become a threatening nuclear force (Iran comes immediately to mind) what American president can now face that enemy down with a credible military threat?

This is a party that from the beginning to the end of its convention pretended to be what it is not. And that is because it fears that American people already know what it is.

The postings here are correct: the Democrats are more obsessed with making sure the Europeans like us than they are about fighting terror. Democrats have long since been seduced by the Europeans. Democrats see Europe as their spiritual homeland, a Disneyland-like place where their values and ideals are closer to reality. For this reason, Democrats assume Europeans are always right until Europeans themselves change their minds. It's no wonder that the gradual estrangement between Europe and the US, a trend that began with the end of the Cold War and which has accelerated following 9/11, is profoundly troubling to Democrats especially (and to many Republicans for that matter).

After having lived in various European countries, mostly Germany, for 2 years, it's no surprise to me that Europeans love Kerry and hate Bush (as reported by Silvia Pigoli on NPR this morning). They hated Bush even before he took office--as early the 2000 campaign. Even before 9/11, he was referred to as a "cowboy" in the German press. Bush's response to 9/11 only confirmed their suspicions. They're also troubled by Bush's religious faith and find his evangelical brand of religion as something for for stupid people. This view isn't surpising given that religion has been dying in Europe for quite some time, particular in Northern Europe where people of faith are viewed as either old-timers making their last-minute Pascal's wagers or younger folks that obviously must be stupid if they believe in God (which many view as akin to believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Ferry, or the Easter Bunny).

Europe obsesses over America's warts--this is how they cope with the fact that the US is otherwise the most successful nation in the history of mankind. When Europe looks at America, they see an ocean of social unjustice, particularly in the form of economic inequality, despite America's vast wealth. For this reason, they believe American society is fundamentally unfair and therefore immoral. The fact that we think so highly of ourselves and view ourselves as a model nation is laughable to many Europeans, who without a doubt see their welfare state model as morally superior (i.e. offering the greatest good for the greatest number--whereas they think America offers the greatest good for the fortunate few).

Republicans represent to them the champions of this unjust society: Republicans are social darwinists who favor the rich elite and are callous to the struggles of poor and middle class "commoners." Democrats, on the other hand, are closer to European values: They want to eradicate social injustice; they believe those with money have a duty to give some of it to the poor; social responsibility overrides individual responsibility. They believe that only government can eradicate social injustice and the free market will ignore, perpetuate, or exacerbate it. Republicans, on the other hand, believe that the unfettered pursuit of rational self-interest that the free market encourages is not the root of social injustice, but rather, the lack of rational self-interest is the root of social injustice.

Speaking of social injustice, allow me to digress for a moment and let me let my fellow Americans in on a dirty secret about Europeans--something they don't like to talk about--keep this one up your sleeve the next time a European slams America on its lack of social justice: Ask them how they treat their disabled citizens. You don't see many of them out in public. Why? Because Europeans don't want them to be seen. They don't have something akin to an Americans With Disabilities Act. They shun and keep their handicapp shut in. Life as a disabled person in most European countries is far more sad than it is for disabled Americans. Is that social justice?

On the military front, Europe wants a benign America. They want to restrain our power through various international frameworks. Europeans, particularly younger ones, don't think we our the hope of the world, they think we're part of the problem--or even THE problem. They ignore all the good that has come from America's military power, not to mention the freedoms that Europeans enjoy today. Many younger Europeans aren't aware that there are American WWII cemetaries close to their homes with fields of white crosses. I know this firsthand.

In closing, I too am troubled by the growing estrangement between Europe and the US, but we let's be clear about one thing: They didn't have nearly 3000 people murdered on the morning of 9/11 with promises of many more to come. If Europe wants to join us, fine, we're glad to have you along. Otherwise, get out of the way. We can't trust Democrats and their love affair with Europeans to get in the way of the dirty work of destroying terrorsts networks. Winning the War on Terror will require the type of dirty work that ponderous intellectual types can't stomache.

What Kerry committed to do in Boston was to unite the " infidel world " against the terrorist. Something if you all have not noticed Bush has been unable to do nor has the political ability to do.

He also committed to carry out the recomendations of the 9/11 Commission. A commission that Bush has dragged his feet on even letting it do it's job. If not for political pressure Bush would have disbaned that commission months ago and hence weaked Americas conter terrorism efforts greatly.

Kerry pointed out Bush has done NOTHING to harden nuclear and chemical sites. NOTHING about 95% of all ships comming into our ports uninspected.

I think Osama would want the man who has not caught him in three years to stay in office.

Kerry also supports a democratic Iraq and knows something that most on this list does not know, that democracy is our best weapond agaist the jihad.

Advocating a one party controll over the United States and engaging in an attack on all opposition to that party with personal insults and questions of integrity about all serious members of that opposition party does NOTHING to advance the democratic process and actually contributes to a climate condusive to the terrorist.

The jihadist what the same thing a lot of you guys are advocating.....a one party right wing state. In such a climate their terror jihad would be most effective.

And hey, what ever happend to Bush's big campain slogan of 2000? " I am a uniter not a devider! " The attitude of his own supporters here shows beyond all shadow of doubt what a big lie that was!

A jihad against the Democratic Party, which some of you are clearly engaged in, only contributes to the Islamic jihad and weakens democracy....plays into the hands of the terrorist. Your jihad should not be against the democratic process but people opposed to it. Standing sholder to sholder with the terrorist in opposition to the democratic process only helps them and weakens us.

If George W. Bush continues to run up budget deficits in the tradition of Ronald Reagan and his own father, it will lay this entire country to waste. We will become a basket case like the old Soviet Union or Brazil. In such a climate any War On Terror will become a moot point. The jihadist movement will ponce on a degenerated United States like a big piece of Swiss Cheese. That is where we are headed now.

Nostrodamus

gregoryscott,

In the words of George S. Patton, General (1885-1945)

LEAD ME, FOLLOW ME, OR GET OUT OF MY WAY!

Where is old blood and guts when we need him now.

I am certian he would send the Islamo-bastards straight to Hell.

Nostrodamus,

I am sorry to see that you are plagued by the "diease" of left wing "liberalism"

If you have not learned anything from the above posts and have not been enlightened to the "truth" about John the "phony war hero" Kerry, then I am afraid that your condition is terminal.

Nostradamus,

I will be voting Republican because I do not trust the democrat party and liberals to protect the US. Howard Dean certainly didn't help matters with his outrageous comments Sunday on CNN. Does Dean think the government is giving us too much information and working too hard to save lives? Would he prefer there was a terror attack?Weren't demorcrats complaining just a few years ago that the American people weren't being given enough information. It should be noted that the Kerry campaign has disavowed the remarks of Howard Dean.Here's a transcript of Dean's remarks about yesterday's terror alert for those who may have missed them.

________________________________

Wolf Blitzer: We're also following the terror threat level here in the United States, specifically in Washington, D.C. where the U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge is about to announce it will be elevated from yellow to orange. CNN will have live coverage of his news conference coming up a little bit less than an hour from now, 2pm Eastern. Let's get some discussion on that, as well as presidential politics. Joining us now from Vermont, the former Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean, joining us live.

Governor Dean thanks very much for joining us, and I want to immediately get your reaction to both of these developing stories. First, the decision by the federal government Department of Homeland Security to increase the threat level here in Washington D.C. from yellow to orange, from elevated to high. What do you make of this?

HOWARN DEAN: It's hard to know what to make, none of us outside the administration have access to the intelligence which led to this determination. I am concerned that every time something happens, it's not good for president Bush. He plays this trump card which is terrorism, his whole campaign is based on the notion that I can keep you safe, therefore, and at times of difficult, difficulty for America stick with me, and then out comes Tom Ridge. It's just impossible to know how much of this is real and how much of this is politics, and I suspect there's some of both in it.

Blitz: Well when you say that, that's a very serious allegation, that the federal government, Tom Ridge, the president of the United States may be playing politics with the whole issue of fear and terror threat levels and I want you to explain specifically so there's no confusion what you mean by that.

DEAN: What I mean by that is the president himself has played politics with it, the president is basing his political campaign for re-election on the notion that he ought to be re-elected because terrorism is a danger and his case to the American people is I'm the only person who can get us through this. So, of course this is politics. The question is, do I believe this is being fabricated? No, of course I don't believe that, but I do think that there is politics in this and the question is, how much is politics and how much is a real threat? I have no doubt there's a real threat here, but I also, there's a long history of orange to yellow, yellow to orange, orange to yellow, without a lot of explanation. I find that the warnings, watch out for somebody walking into buildings, watch out for somebody driving cars, watch out for somebody driving a truck, that's not very helpful in New York City. It'd be very helpful if the federal government would be much more specific about exactly what they'd like us to watch out for as they're raising all these levels.

Blitz: But isn't it important that if there are serious indicators of a threat out there that the federal government at least notify those who may be in harm's way, to be a little bit more vigilant?

DEAN: Yes it is, very important, and one of the things about this warning which is different than the previous many many many that the Bush administration has given us is, they've given us specific cities and specific targets. The usual pattern of the Bush administration is, just come out and tell everybody we have chatter we have chatter watch out watch out, and the is totally unhelpful. This at least confines it to a geographic area, and I think that's an improvement. I think, frankly, that this is an area which I think John Kerry would handle much differently. I think John Kerry would probably wait until he knew exactly what the situation was. He's also said that he would hire more special forces people, and that's going to be the key to stopping this. We need to stop these people in their own lands, not when they get to ours.

Blitz: Governor Dean, you were Governor when Tom Ridge was Governor of Pennsylvania, you clearly know him. Is he the kind of man who would play politics with this kind of sensitive subject?

DEAN: Look, I like Tom Ridge, and I knew George Bush and I liked George Bush. The president himself has said he is playing politics with this. The president himself has said that he ought to be re-elected because of the terrible terrorist danger. I don't see what's the big deal about this. It's obvious that politics has something to do with this.

Blitz: Well, as I said before, that's a very serious charge that you're making against the president.

DEAN: I don't think it's a serious charge, it's something the president himself has acknowledged.

Blitz: Well, when you say

DEAN: The president's campaign is based on

Blitz: He says this is not, let me just say, he says that what he's doing is trying to protect the American people when he and his intelligence community, law enforcement community sense there are threats out there.

DEAN: I have no doubt that the president is trying to protect the American people, that's his job and I think that's a good thing. I think that's good, that's what he should be doing. However, when you're going to run on inspiring fear in the American people, that's politics, and there's no way you can get out of accusations and discussions about the relationship between politics and protecting us against terrorism in an election year, when the president of the United States is avowedly running his political re-election campaign on the notion that he can protect us better from terrorism than John Kerry can. I happen to disagree with that, but the president himself made the choice to inject politics into the campaign on terrorism. That was his choice, he's now going to have to live with the consequences.

Blitz: Ok, let's go on and talk about Iraq...

The following excerpts were taken from articles posted at FrontPageMagazine.com a good source of information on the "truth" about John Kerry.

Kerry's Self-Indictment
By Ben Johnson, July 30, 2004

"How would Kerry have handled this situation? Ted Kennedy let the cat out of the bag last week on the Democrats’ new favorite network, al-Jazeera. Last Sunday, he told the terrorist-friendly network: “I am personally convinced that if John Kerry was president of the United States during that time we never would have had an Iraq war. We never would have gone to war.” Make that one vote for a nuclear Saddam".

The liberal Democrats are a hopeless lot of politically correct left wing marxists whose utopian ideas would only bring about the complete destruction of this country.

Liberalism should be classified as a "mental disorder", then we could have them all confined to institutions. If this doesn't work then have them all deported to Cuba.

Poll: No boost for Kerry after convention

By Susan Page, USA TODAY

Last week's Democratic convention boosted voters' impressions of John Kerry but failed to give him the expected bump in the head-to-head race against President Bush, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds. (Related item: Poll results)
In the survey, taken Friday and Saturday, Bush led Kerry 50%-46% among likely voters. Independent candidate Ralph Nader was at 2%.

The survey showed Kerry losing 1 percentage point and Bush gaining 4 percentage points from a poll taken the week before the Boston convention.

The change in support was within the poll's margin of error of +/-4 percentage points in the sample of 763 likely voters. But it was nonetheless surprising, the first time since the chaotic Democratic convention in 1972 that a candidate hasn't gained ground during his convention

The Iraq war is now in the history books,it's nice that Kerry would have allowed the rape and murder of women in Iraq to show his morals for unprovoked conflicts.
God help females in the USA when they have to depend on Kerry to protect their rights,misogeny is alive and well in the democrates and the leader
see's Clinton as the victim of a siren named Monica. How dare she expect equal treatment by Democrates.

As for Europe,the 9/11 attack is looking more like a USA problem,but then again I wouldn't
want my life to be in the hands of Chirac's
brave wine drinkers. Kerry must have learned why the Huey's in Nam were nick-named "Slicks" ,when real soldiers from the U.S. landed in choppers to flush out or engage the V.C. by drawing fire to locate them.The huey landing skids had to be smeared with grease to stop the ARVN cowards from
running away to hitch a ride out of battle by clinging to a skid just as the huey takes off.
The grease save many pilots live from not being over-exposed in a hot LZ,but the munchkins were more than willing to let somebody else die for their freedom,NEVER MORE.
If France and Spain along with the Phillipino's
cave into the Jihadists so easily then to hell
with them,let the real freedom fighters show Islam what there're up against.When the Jihad cowards use civilians as shields I see them as already dead and Islam killed them,not me,they
think we don't have the guts to battle but are they wrong.
I'll die to preserve freedom for our children,Muslims are obsessed with pleasing Allah by slaughtering Gods children,so who's side do you think God favors. The Satan worshippers following a misogenist pedophile,or the one protecting his children from automatronic psychopath killers.

I too was a lifelong Democrat, going back to 1952--until 9-11--now I'm a registered Republican. Kerry clearly sees the main danger to the world as emanating from the United States and its "arrogance" under W. Interesting that he returns constantly to his Vietnam experience; it shows that he still believes as he did then, that America must be reined in by treaties, agreements and UN resolutions. No wonder Eurabia wants him to win.

I was a Republican but this time I am going for Kerry. Bush after three years of stalling, stonewalling, is now forced to accept the 911 commission's ideas only after Kerry said he would first. Bush is in fact losing the war against Al Qaeda I fear, Afghanistan and Iraq are wobbly, and the terrorist ranks are growing. I wholeheartedly support the troops (my dad was in the service) and my greatest fear would be losing either Iraq or Afghanistan, or suffering further terror attacks at home.
We need to win the war of ideas, too, and we need to rally the world. We need to make democracy more attractive than suicide terror.
Bush is a failure, he's stupid, incompetent and corrupt. Al Qaeda would be only too happy for Bush to win again (they said as much in that Mardid letter) and watch out for Qaeda to try and bomb us right before election, in the hope that we will rally to the president. It's a sick idea but I wouldn't put it past these democracy-hating jihad maniacs.

Bush has gotta go!

Death to terrorists and terrorism!

Long live the USA!

Here's the link:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040317/325/eotq9.html

WE WANT BUSH TO WIN

The statement said it supported U.S. President George W. Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilisation."

"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."

The group said its cells were ready for another attack and time was running out for allies of the United States.

"Whose turn is it next? Will it be Japan or America, or Italy, Britain or Oslo or Australia?" the statement said, adding Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were also targets.

The group is named after Muhammed Atef, also known as Abu Hafs, a close bin Laden aide killed in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan.

Mega2004, you rank right up there with Reza and Nostra as one of the most hilarious posters to grace the halls of jihadwatch. Let's dissect that hilarity you've served up today.

Mega2004: "Bush after three years of stalling, stonewalling, is now forced to accept the 911 commission's ideas..."

And what ideas are those, pray tell? The 9-11 commission just released their findings recently, so how could Bush have been stalling for three years? Do you know anything about the 9-11 commission and how its results were achieved? If you did, I really doubt you could say the above with a straight face.

Mega2004: "Bush is in fact losing the war against Al Qaeda I fear..." So you're voting for Kerry on the basis of your fear, not facts?

Mega2004: "and the terrorist ranks are growing."

This is of doubtful veracity. I'm sure you know about the tornado phenomenon, where when a devestating tornado hits, suddenly the news is all abuzz with other tornadoes elsewhere. After a few months, the coverage tapers off or disappears completely. To the readers at home, this will sound like something's wrong with the weather. Not at all! It's just the news focussing on something they didn't focus on before. It seems like there are more terrorists now because 1) the liberal press covers every single terror group they can find to embarass the president 2) the terror groups must be strident to attract people to a cause where their mortality rates are increasing 3) terror groups must be strident to appeal to folks who have tasted democracy and don't want to go back.

Mega: "or suffering further terror attacks at home."

And you trust a war criminal, a liar, and someone who consults his 13-year-old daughter on war votes to safeguard our country?

Mega2004: "We need to win the war of ideas"

Kerry changes his ideas every few minutes.

Mega2004: "we need to rally the world."

Other countries, due to their sizable Islamic populations, will not support democracy abroad. Still other countries will not support democracy because they are in bed with dictators (France, Germany, even Russia to an extent). There can be no persuading these countries except by changing your message to not bother them overmuch.

Mega2004: "Bush is a failure, he's stupid, incompetent and corrupt"

Here we go again, the same old Democratic talking points. *laughs* Let me know when you have some reasons and believable ones, how and why the war criminal, liar, and flip-flopper John Kerry can do better.

Next?
~NMJ

That "statement" looks like a pathetic attempt at reverse psychology to me.However, I won't allow terrorists to interfere with the democratic process.Whether there is a terrorist attack or no terrorist attack on Novemeber 2nd I'm voting Republican.

mega2004,

Stop wasting your time, the Democratic Party is finished.

Try to use that small "liberal" brain of yours and read all the "facts" posted here about John the "phony war hero" Kerry and John the "ambulance chasing" Edwards.

I doubt that you were ever a Republican, it's the liberal Dem's that are the flip-floppers.

And stop smoking that dope it's rotting your brain.

Roxane, you are right. There's no doubt that this is a bird brained attempt at reverse psychology. Too bad mega2004 fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

I agree, it is quite funny how that one little bit of terrorist "intelligence" leaked out.

Mega2004,

You don't have to vote for Bush if you really feel he is that bad. But I would take a long, critical look before voting for Kerry.

Kerry has no executive experience, and has never run anything more economically complex than a lemonade stand, if he has even doen that much. Would you truly want him to to run our country, with it's highly complex economy?

Kerry cannot seem to decide on his positions. Do you really want a leader that changing his positions solely on focus group data?

Kerry has no moral center. How can a man go to war, and then come home and call his fellow soldiers and sailor criminals? How can he recognize a fetus is a living child, and still support abortion?

I don't think Bush is perfect, he has a lot he needs to change. But I'm not going to vote for Kerry and screw my country over, either.

Whether you decide to vote for a third party or not at all is entirely up to you, but you shouldn't hurt your fellow americans by voting for a candidate just becuase he isn't something you disagree with.

NMJ, I think what mega2004 may be referring to when he mentions foot-dragging by Bush on the 9/11 Commission is his widely-reported reluctance to even go along with putting the 9/11 Commission together in the first place, not to mention subsequent attempts by his cabinet members, like Condi Rice, to avoid having to testify before the Commission.

Although I will vote for Bush in November, I don't understand why they weren't supportive early on. In any event, Bush announced a little while ago that he's adopting the Commissions recommendations with some tweaks.

gregoryscott,

Bush was wary, and rightly so, that the commission might be set up to be a witch hunt, and not a true investigative body.

How could he not when Jamie Gorelick, the principle actor contributing to the "wall of separation" in the Justice Department, and definately at least partially to blame was a selected as a commissioner instead of as a witness as she should have been?

When Benvineste was extremely combative with Dr. Rice, how could it have felt like anything other than a witch hunt?

All of these commissioner's came in with a personal history. Be assured Bush's staff knew their reputations well, and had reasons to wonder about their real goals and objectives.

The people that live for public inquiries
just don't get it,the results of a commission can be read buy the terrorists that are trying to kill you.
Here's a thought,lets have every homeowner register their home-security system and point out all the flaws that will let criminals break into
there homes.This will include the alarm codes and the hours your not at home but have the lights on timers to deceive the burglars.

In the Canadian Parliament a opposition member demanded the information on why a special set of passports were pushed through the House.
The slacked-jawed idiot almost gave away Canada's plan to rescue the Iranian hostages
that were smuggled out by Ken Taylor at the Canadian Embassy.
The Member had a ego problem and wanted to be the man that forced the Government to explain it in public. This same idiot would have felt no guilt if they Americans were killed because his type always revert to the claim that "you should have insisted I not know the truth",it's your fault thet're dead,this information shouldn't have been public.

Hindsight is great,but security issue need to be dealt with in private by all parties see the information. I say we drag the Democrates into a meeting on a terrorist threat and ask them what we should do,if their dicision kills thousands then they share the blame. Canada has the NDP in opposition as a minority power that will never run the Country,they love promising anything and
attacking any good idea is the norm for these yahoo's. They act like the Kerry crowd,the world just needs more love and the Jihadists will put down their weapons and hug a Jew.
The Canadian Democrates want a limit on incomes and higher taxes to pay for free education,housing,health care,dental care,electricity,child daycare,state car insurance,income subsidies,higher refugee intake and immigration numbers,and on and on.

mega2004:

I suggest you pop over to LGF (link on this homepage) and read some of the recent articles on Kerry - like his brilliant idea to help Iran with their nuclear program.

A brilliant plan by Kerry, really. Think of all the intelligence money we can save!

Instead of spending billions of dollars trying to infiltrate Iran and determine their nuclear capability, why don't we just give them the uranium so we know exactly what they have?

The abject stupidity of the liberal Democrat mind never ceases to amaze me...

More proof Kerry is off his rocker:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/3/90644.shtml

To sum things up, Kerry replaced his campaign's religious advisor with one of the people who filed a friend-of-the-court brief for athiest Michael Newdow as he tried to get the words "under God" removed from the Pleadge of Allegience.

Cathoic League President William Donohue said, "Are they out of their minds? Would they hire a gay basher to reach out to homosexuals?"

This person, as I mentioned is a replacement religous advisor. The first one turned out to be a radical leftist anti-Catholic bigot.

I don't know if the Democrats are still calling themselves "the Big Tent" party, but they certainly qualify for a big, white hood.

USA Today has a frontpage story today that seeks to analyze why Bush and not Kerry got the "bounce" from the democratic convention.One theory that I've read in other places is that the democrats ended up energizing republicans more then democrats with their carefully scripted convention.

No Bounce Kerry

No Bounce, KeithJoy?