Sunday I was listening to an NPR story by Sylvia Poggioli about the European reaction to a Kerry candidacy. (Scroll down the page to "European Poll Shows Desire for U.S. Leadership Change.") The essence of it is that Kerry is Europe's man for president. They think he is more "European" in his views, more "global" in his policies and less interested in pushing the "American" agenda than a "world" agenda. is should give pause to anyone considering Kerry for president. If Kerry will give deference to Europe over the American people, America will be the worse for it.
While it is important that we as a nation take into consideration the opinions and needs of the rest of the world, when it comes "push to shove,” we must do what is right for America. While it may not seem so at first, what is right for us ultimately will be beneficial for the world. America did not become the last remaining world super power by kowtowing to the weak of heart. The ability to assemble a coalition does not always make right the cause. Sometimes, maybe even often, the coalition, the herd if I may, are wrong. It takes strong leadership to strike ahead and do what is right rather than what is safe.
A member of the Italian left was quoted as saying that if Kerry is elected president, they will vote to send Italian troops to Iraq to "secure the peace." Is this supposed to be some kind of carrot? Some kind of blackmail? Italy will get involved only if Bush is pushed aside? And should that happen; I wonder how long those Italian troops will be in Iraq. Until the first kidnapping of an Italian citizen whose life is threatened unless they pull out? Spain, the Philippines and others have set the bar for that.
The difference between those nations and the US is that our leadership knows that the right thing to do is rarely the easy thing to do.
The other thing to consider in a European preference for Kerry is that France and Germany, leading members of the European Union, have gone on record that they see said union as a challenger to US strength in the world arena. Obviously they must think a Kerry presidency will promote that agenda, weakening the US, while a continued Bush presidency will continue to stymie their bid for dominance. Now the question, do we as the American people want our leadership to weaken us as a world leader, diminishing our strength, power and influence as a nation and as a people?
Certainly we do not want to dictate to the free societies of the world what they should do. Neither do we want to be a lap dog of Europe and Asia, formulating our domestic and world policies at their pleasure. It seems Europe thinks that will be the case in a Kerry administration, and they are gleeful at the thought.
Be sure to visit Letters From Iraq
Friday, August 06, 2004
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Couldn't help posting this. John Kerry, by wearing his 4 month tour in Vietnam on his campaign sleeve has opened himself up to scrutiny in that area, and it seems he's been found wanting. It seems, contrary to what he would have you think, not all of his fellow veterans consider his the best candidate for President. In fact a significant number of them.
According to radio talk show host Neal Boortz, in addition to turning on his fellow soldiers after returning from 'Nam, there seems to be some validity to the assertion that while all of Kerry's Purple Hearts met the technical criteria for the award, two of them were questionable due to the minor nature of the injury. Keep in mind that Boortz is certainly no fan of Kerry, so keep that in mind when you check out his comments on Boortz.com.
Here's a couple links to published stories, read and make up your own mind:
Former Kerry commander disputes Purple Heart
Purple Hearts: Three and Out
Veterans and the Kerry Controversy Be aware, this link is to Men's News Daily. While not pornographic or "dirty," (at least what I saw) it is oriented towards men; articles and advertising content are in that genre.
Kerry's also trotted out some 13 Swift boat veterans as supporting his candidacy. The organization, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth seems to have a very different take on Kerry. Be sure to check their comments on Kerry before you make up your mind on the legitimacy of the Dems line on Kerry's combat experiences.
It's important to note that when 20 of these vets went to Washington to express their opposition to Kerry during the Democratic primaries, the media barely gave notice.
Finally, if you want still more on this, check out "Unfit For Command" by John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi. This new book, not yet released, is already number three on Amazon's list. Sounds like an interesting read for anyone interested in this campaign, Democrat or Republican.
From a review on Amazon: "It is critical of Kerry, very critical. That is obvious from the authors and their associated organization, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The book will provide details significantly damaging to the Kerry campaign...John O'Neill is hardly a Republican shill. He is basically apolitical and only reluctantly entered the fray this year because Kerry was running for president and has yet to retract for his many damaging falsehoods during his anti-war years. "For the rest of the review see, "So you'd like to... Know the Truth about Kerry."
Most readers know by now I'm not in Kerry's camp. But is seems for all the arrows directed towards President Bush accusing him of lying, the Kerry folks and their entourage need to take the beam out of their own eye before they start trying to put one in Bush's.
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
John Kerry's stump speech in since the convention has included charges that President Bush has been too slow to implement changes to increase security and has not done enough. What Mr. Kerry has not done is to give specifics as to what he would do differently. He is doing nothing more than making empty accusations. No substance to back up his charges.
Let's see here, since September 11, 2001 Bush has implemented the Department of Homeland Security, breaking down the walls between our intelligence services put up by Jamie Gorelick of the Clinton administration, eradication of some 60-70% of al Qaeda in the war in Afghanistan, increased security at the nations airports, increased personnel and on board air marshals, increased scrutiny of our borders and of those coming in country. Implementation of the Patriot Act to give law enforcement and intelligence agencies additional tools to protect the nation.
Better intelligence and analysis of that intelligence from overseas and Internet sources. Improved communication between government intelligence agencies and local/state agencies. Increased surveillance from the air of our territorial waters and potential target cities by our military. Increases in the size of our military by 40,000 personnel. Improved technology to use in many areas of security from airport scanners of people and packages to huge scanners at our borders to scan vehicles including semi-trailers. Better interfacing with the intelligence services of our allies to share information pertaining to terrorism. These are just the things I'm aware of. No doubt there are many more changes, additions and improvement to our nations security that we have not and cannot be told so as to not tip off the terrorists. Peruse the Department of Homeland Securtiy web site to learn more.
Kerry says, "Not enough, too slow." But he has gone on record criticizing the Patriot Act as being to invasive. He has voted against many of the very tools and weapons systems now being used against terrorism.
My guess is that this is merely posturing by Kerry. When the inevitable terrorist attack on our nation comes I believe Kerry will again stand up on his stump and announce, "See, I told you Bush has been too slow, neither has he done enough to secure the homeland."
The only way to provide 100% protection for the US is to preemptively attack every nation that supports and provides aid and comfort to terrorists in a devastating, scorched earth blow. Close our borders, not allowing any traffic of pedestrian, vehicular or cargo to come into the country. To blast out of the skies and off the seas any aircraft of ship that is not immediately identified as carrying the US flag. Even then, someone, some how, some way will get through. And Kerry would announce, "Not enough!"
As Condoleezza Rice stated before the 9/11 commission, "We have to get it right 100% of the time, they only have to get it right once."
Be sure to visit Letters From Iraq
Let's see here, since September 11, 2001 Bush has implemented the Department of Homeland Security, breaking down the walls between our intelligence services put up by Jamie Gorelick of the Clinton administration, eradication of some 60-70% of al Qaeda in the war in Afghanistan, increased security at the nations airports, increased personnel and on board air marshals, increased scrutiny of our borders and of those coming in country. Implementation of the Patriot Act to give law enforcement and intelligence agencies additional tools to protect the nation.
Better intelligence and analysis of that intelligence from overseas and Internet sources. Improved communication between government intelligence agencies and local/state agencies. Increased surveillance from the air of our territorial waters and potential target cities by our military. Increases in the size of our military by 40,000 personnel. Improved technology to use in many areas of security from airport scanners of people and packages to huge scanners at our borders to scan vehicles including semi-trailers. Better interfacing with the intelligence services of our allies to share information pertaining to terrorism. These are just the things I'm aware of. No doubt there are many more changes, additions and improvement to our nations security that we have not and cannot be told so as to not tip off the terrorists. Peruse the Department of Homeland Securtiy web site to learn more.
Kerry says, "Not enough, too slow." But he has gone on record criticizing the Patriot Act as being to invasive. He has voted against many of the very tools and weapons systems now being used against terrorism.
My guess is that this is merely posturing by Kerry. When the inevitable terrorist attack on our nation comes I believe Kerry will again stand up on his stump and announce, "See, I told you Bush has been too slow, neither has he done enough to secure the homeland."
The only way to provide 100% protection for the US is to preemptively attack every nation that supports and provides aid and comfort to terrorists in a devastating, scorched earth blow. Close our borders, not allowing any traffic of pedestrian, vehicular or cargo to come into the country. To blast out of the skies and off the seas any aircraft of ship that is not immediately identified as carrying the US flag. Even then, someone, some how, some way will get through. And Kerry would announce, "Not enough!"
As Condoleezza Rice stated before the 9/11 commission, "We have to get it right 100% of the time, they only have to get it right once."
Be sure to visit Letters From Iraq
Monday, August 02, 2004
The past several weeks I've focused on other projects that still consume an inordinate amount of time. Specifically, I've been working on revamping a web site for my brother-in-law's start-up business. The fact that I'm a novice at working with html (despite my several years experience with WYSIWYG web authoring) wasn't a deterrent to him. I guess when funds are limited; lack of experience is no excuse. The business is offering some cool products and while the site isn't fancy, it hopefully will be a good tool. Over time I'll be working to refine and improve it.
RaptureReady Gear™...old site.....preview of the new site.
While there is much to go, I've got the first iteration of the site format together and it is nearly functional. Later this week we'll take it live and start on a few of the additional areas to make the site a bit more of a destination. The result of this narrow focus is that while I've been pretty much kept up with the news, and have formed several ideas and comments along the way, there's been little time to formulate into commentary on this blog. Thus the dearth of postings.
Just a few quick comments though. Michael Moore. I watched his interview with Bill O'Reilly during the Democratic Convention and was struck by several things. His inability to concede that President Bush did not lie to the American public about Iraq but was the recipient of faulty information from both the CIA and British intelligence. Both of those organizations, plus the Russian intelligence services have conceded that they had come to the same conclusions, Iraq had and was acquiring more WMD’s. (I wonder in the face of the premier intelligence agencies of the world coming to the same analytical conclusions, was there an effort by Saddam to provide this disinformation to discredit and embarrass the administration?)
Bush acted on that information in a proactive manner to protect America from the possibility of attack. Moore says it doesn't matter that Bush may have had faulty intelligence, that he repeated it to the American public and then acted on it constituted a lie. Huh? So if someone told Moore that a particular script would result in a blockbuster movie and Moore sold it to a number of investors for millions of dollars, then the production was a bust and everyone lost all of their investment, Moore would be a liar for acting in good faith on the information he had?
The other thing I noticed about Moore is that he constantly referred to our military men and women as "children." Time after time he made statements such as, to paraphrase, "Bush sending our children to Iraq to die," and asking O'Reilly if he would "send his children to Iraq or Fallujah to die?"
First of all, they are not "children" but grown men and women, some certainly young adults, but adults nonetheless. To imply that they were incapable of, in Moore's opinion, making a mature decision to join the military, unawares of the potential for deployment to a war zone, and are thus being abused by their commander-in-chief by going to do the jobs they are primarily trained for, is patronizing and demeaning. While certainly no sane person passionately desires to be subjected to the horrors of combat, at the same time they go knowing they have a job to do, it is a job they have volunteered for by enlisting and they have been trained and equipped to carry out their orders.
Secondly, President Bush did not send our soldiers to Iraq "to die." They went there to drive out a brutal dictator who, WMD’s or not, was a threat to the US and world peace as well as to the Iraqi people. The sad fact of military combat is that there will be loss of life, it is inevitable. But our military men and women did not go there to die, but to win freedom for the Iraqi people and secure the peace. That this has been difficult to achieve over the past year is testament to the very necessity of the action taken to secure it. To say our men and women went there to die is to concede defeat and demean the sacrifice of those who have given their lives for the Iraqi people and for their country.
Finally, anyone viewing Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 needs to keep in mind that Moore is a filmmaker. As such, remember that the operational mode for a filmmaker is to have in hand a concept, a script, to know the end result of what you want to produce, and then craft your product to achieve the desired result. Moore followed this pattern in creating F-9/11. He knew what he wanted the finished product to achieve, smearing President Bush in the most negative way possible. Then he set about adjusting time lines, changing scenarios and fact to achieve that end. Truth wasn't an issue. Smearing Bush was the objective and nothing would get in the way, certainly not truth.
Moore's fast and loose playing with the facts of the allegations he makes has been documented by such sources as Newsweek. Yet he continues deliberately misleading a blind American pubic. His product is not documentary; it is not the search for the truth. It is a thinly veiled political campaign to spread lies and innuendo to try to bring down President Bush. To think otherwise is to remain oblivious to the obvious.
Most people know the movie Titanic is fiction, but there is a number who think it is the truth of what really happened. While there are diehard Bush haters who swallow Moore's celluloid diatribe, hopefully, most people will realize F-9/11 is fiction as well and write off Michael Moore as a truly angry white male with no passion for the truth.
Be sure to visit Letters From Iraq
RaptureReady Gear™...old site.....preview of the new site.
While there is much to go, I've got the first iteration of the site format together and it is nearly functional. Later this week we'll take it live and start on a few of the additional areas to make the site a bit more of a destination. The result of this narrow focus is that while I've been pretty much kept up with the news, and have formed several ideas and comments along the way, there's been little time to formulate into commentary on this blog. Thus the dearth of postings.
Just a few quick comments though. Michael Moore. I watched his interview with Bill O'Reilly during the Democratic Convention and was struck by several things. His inability to concede that President Bush did not lie to the American public about Iraq but was the recipient of faulty information from both the CIA and British intelligence. Both of those organizations, plus the Russian intelligence services have conceded that they had come to the same conclusions, Iraq had and was acquiring more WMD’s. (I wonder in the face of the premier intelligence agencies of the world coming to the same analytical conclusions, was there an effort by Saddam to provide this disinformation to discredit and embarrass the administration?)
Bush acted on that information in a proactive manner to protect America from the possibility of attack. Moore says it doesn't matter that Bush may have had faulty intelligence, that he repeated it to the American public and then acted on it constituted a lie. Huh? So if someone told Moore that a particular script would result in a blockbuster movie and Moore sold it to a number of investors for millions of dollars, then the production was a bust and everyone lost all of their investment, Moore would be a liar for acting in good faith on the information he had?
The other thing I noticed about Moore is that he constantly referred to our military men and women as "children." Time after time he made statements such as, to paraphrase, "Bush sending our children to Iraq to die," and asking O'Reilly if he would "send his children to Iraq or Fallujah to die?"
First of all, they are not "children" but grown men and women, some certainly young adults, but adults nonetheless. To imply that they were incapable of, in Moore's opinion, making a mature decision to join the military, unawares of the potential for deployment to a war zone, and are thus being abused by their commander-in-chief by going to do the jobs they are primarily trained for, is patronizing and demeaning. While certainly no sane person passionately desires to be subjected to the horrors of combat, at the same time they go knowing they have a job to do, it is a job they have volunteered for by enlisting and they have been trained and equipped to carry out their orders.
Secondly, President Bush did not send our soldiers to Iraq "to die." They went there to drive out a brutal dictator who, WMD’s or not, was a threat to the US and world peace as well as to the Iraqi people. The sad fact of military combat is that there will be loss of life, it is inevitable. But our military men and women did not go there to die, but to win freedom for the Iraqi people and secure the peace. That this has been difficult to achieve over the past year is testament to the very necessity of the action taken to secure it. To say our men and women went there to die is to concede defeat and demean the sacrifice of those who have given their lives for the Iraqi people and for their country.
Finally, anyone viewing Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 needs to keep in mind that Moore is a filmmaker. As such, remember that the operational mode for a filmmaker is to have in hand a concept, a script, to know the end result of what you want to produce, and then craft your product to achieve the desired result. Moore followed this pattern in creating F-9/11. He knew what he wanted the finished product to achieve, smearing President Bush in the most negative way possible. Then he set about adjusting time lines, changing scenarios and fact to achieve that end. Truth wasn't an issue. Smearing Bush was the objective and nothing would get in the way, certainly not truth.
Moore's fast and loose playing with the facts of the allegations he makes has been documented by such sources as Newsweek. Yet he continues deliberately misleading a blind American pubic. His product is not documentary; it is not the search for the truth. It is a thinly veiled political campaign to spread lies and innuendo to try to bring down President Bush. To think otherwise is to remain oblivious to the obvious.
Most people know the movie Titanic is fiction, but there is a number who think it is the truth of what really happened. While there are diehard Bush haters who swallow Moore's celluloid diatribe, hopefully, most people will realize F-9/11 is fiction as well and write off Michael Moore as a truly angry white male with no passion for the truth.
Be sure to visit Letters From Iraq
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)