Infinite Perpetuality

Ukraine, the Future of Europe, Protestors, and Bin Laden

2004-11-29T22:13:00.000-05:00

The situation in Ukraine has serious implications for the future of Europe. On one side are the forces which seek the re-establishment of the Russian empire, which is one of corruption, backwardness, centralization, and dictatorship. On the other are forces which seek modernization, liberalization, and democratization, which are inspired by and drawn toward the West. The former are hard Leftists; the latter are Democrats. The Leftists engaged in gross electoral fraud in the recent run-off election to secure the victory of their presidential candidate. The Democrats are protesting the election and have gained the support or sympathy of a majority of justices of the supreme court, of a large majority of members of parliament, and of many policemen. The Leftists have received support from Leftist-dominated and heavily Russian regional governments, many of which are discussing separation from the state of Ukraine if their candidate is denied the presidency. Today, the outgoing president, a Leftist, said that new elections may be the solution to the situation.

The situation in Ukraine also highlights the differences between protestors for liberty and Leftist agitators. The pro-liberty protestors in Ukraine are peaceful and dignified, as were the protestors in Tiananmen Square, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, Serbia, and elsewhere. There is no violence, vandalism, demonization, or thuggishness by pro-liberty protestors. It contrasts starkly with Leftist protestors—whether the protest is anti-globalization, anti-war, or anti-America—who almost always engage in violence, vandalism, demonization or thuggishness. Compare it further with the claims by Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda that they are only fighting to rid themselves of dictatorial regimes. The dictatorships that existed in Eastern Europe during the Cold War were much worse than the dictatorships in the Middle East. (Indeed, the Soviet Union not only supported and inspired terrorists in the Middle East and elsewhere, but practically created all modern terrorist organizations and modern terrorism.) Yet, the pro-liberty (i.e., anti-dictatorship) forces there did not engage in terrorism, but instead organized, dissented, and protested—all with the support of the United States—and they eventually toppled the dictatorships. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have only engaged in terrorism, murder and mayhem, and the dissemination of hateful propaganda. Their cause is not one of pro-liberty, or anti-dictatorship, and therefore one which may receive widespread support. It is instead one of even harsher dictatorship, a theocratic totalism of their death cult.

Rather Resigns Anchor Post

2004-11-23T22:23:00.000-05:00

Dan Rather announced today that as of March 2005 he will longer be anchor of C.B.S.'s evening news broadcast. He will however continue to be the host of the network's 60 Minutes II and to function in an off-camera role at the network. He still has not apologized to George W. Bush and the public for airing a "story" based on obviously fake documents—the authenticity of which even the experts whose advice C.B.S. sought regarding them were at best sceptical and at worst warning against—in an effort to hurt Mr. Bush's chance for re-election. Nobody involved in the hit piece has been punished. The investigation that C.B.S. launched into the matter has yet to report its findings. (This is unlike the rapidity with which the network fired the person responsible for cutting into C.S.I.-N.Y. when Yasser Arafat died: two days.)

French Shoot Unarmed Ivorian Civilians

2004-11-21T20:27:00.000-05:00

Little Green Footballs has links to two videos which show French "peacekeepers" shooting on unarmed Ivorian civilians. The Ivorians were protesting peacefully, yet the French opened fire on the them, injuring many and killing several.

The Ivorian protesters were not at all violent or hooliganish, unlike the Leftist, communist, anti-American (pardon the redundancies) protesters at "anti-war", "peace", and anti-"globalization" protests around the world, where violence and vandalism are common. Yet, while the Leftists are not countered with live fire, the Ivorians were. The French are in a former colony of theirs, and the Ivorians are black.

The unprovoked, indiscriminate shooting by the French at peaceful, unarmed civilians is an atrocity and must be condemned. So far, only the Ivorians have done so. The international press has been quiet, failing to expose the atrocity. The United Nations, under which auspices the French have permission to be in Ivory Coast, has been quiet too. All the"great and good" who expose and condemn every single action by American soldiers, even when there is nothing to condemn (such as the Marine who killed a terrorist in Fallujah), have been quiet.

By their deeds, they shall be judged. Those who fail to condemn this atrocity, while condemning American non-atrocities care nothing about justice, only about advancing their goal of anti-Americanism. Everybody who cares about truth and justice must oppose them and expose them for the Leftist, anti-Americans they are (pardon the redundancy).

Dutch In Turmoil Following Islamist Ritual Slaughter of Van Gogh

2004-11-21T19:08:00.000-05:00

The ritual slaughter of Theo van Gogh by an Islamist has sent Dutch society into turmoil. It has exposed anger at Islam and unassimilated Muslim immigrants. A popular Dutch lawmaker is urging a halt to non-Western immigration and the shutting down of mosques where radicalism is preached. There has been a proposal to revive a law against blasphemy.

All this has sparked an examination of multiculturalism and Leftist political correctness, which stifles and censors all discussion of immigration, immigrants, Islam and Islamic culture. Jonah Goldberg, Debra Saunders, Theodore Dalrymple, David Warren, and Anthony Browne have all recently written on this subject.

The objections and criticisms of multiculturalism and relativism are not new, but the bitter fruits of the two -isms have now ripened and threaten to kill the gardens in which they were planted, embraced and nourished. The discussion therefore is now salient because the existential threat of the two –isms is no longer academic but all too real, all too present, all too strong and all too pervasive. It is sad that the situation had to become catastrophic before the dangers of the two –isms were discussed rationally. It is alarming that some still fail to understand the lethality of the two –isms, and still defend them and suppress all objections and criticisms.

Parenthetically, I understood the danger of multiculturalism at an early age. When the indoctrination about the supposed superiority of multiculturalism began in grade school, at about the third of fourth grade, I argued against it and defended assimilation. I argued that assimilation is necessary to establish national cohesion and loyalty, and therefore aids national defense, and as a defense against balkanization and fifth columns. The teacher continued to prattle about the joys of the richness of different cultures, of the freedom that immigrants enjoy when they can continue to practice their culture without any demand on them to assimilate, and of the injustice of requiring assimilation.

Martin Boots Bigot from Party Only After She Insults Him

2004-11-21T18:13:00.000-05:00

Paul Martin, the prime minister of the government of the state of Canada, booted Carolyn Parrish, an anti-American and anti- Bush bigot, from his party, the Liberal Party of Canada. He did so not because she is a bigot or because of the anti-Bush vitriol she continually spews. He did so, as he and fellow Liberals said, because she practically dared him to fire her, being insubordinate and having said she is disloyal to him and thus to the party.

The Parrish woman is a bigot, yet no Canadian politician and none of the Canadian reporting about her has called her that. They, however, would not refrain from doing so if she were directing her bigotry toward blacks, Jews, Indians, Eskimos, Arabs, or Quebeckers. They rebuke her for using her public status to voice her hatred and thereby making Canadians’ business relations with Americans more difficult. By failing to call her what she is and failing condemn her for it, they are tacitly agreeing with her. It is outrageous and shameful. In doing so, they forfeit all claims by Canadians that their society is a moral pillar.

Canadian Censor Approves Fox News for Distribution in Canada

2004-11-21T18:10:00.000-05:00

The Canadian broadcast censor has approved Fox News for distribution in Canada, a result, at least in part, of the high level of demand for the service. The availability of Fox News—even though it will be as part of a higher-end cable service—will put a crack into the Leftist domination of the press in the country.

As biased toward the Left as the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, A.B.C. News, C.B.S. News, N.B.C. News, C.N.N. and M.S.N.B.C. are, the Canadian press is even worse and lacks even the level of polish that the American press does. The Canadian press is very similar in its ideology and in its ham-handedness to the press that existed in communist dictatorships (and, alas, which continues to exist in too many cases, even though communism as a brand exists no more).

C.N.N. has been available for many years in Canada, on a relatively low-end cable package, but while it is superior to Canadian television news programs, it is nonetheless a purveyor of the establishment Leftist conventional wisdom. Nevertheless, its availability has been a blessing for which Canadians should be grateful.

Fox News is the first and remains the only television news program that treats conservatives and Rightists with respect and as having legitimate views. It is for doing so—which the establishment press does not—that the establishment attacks Fox News.

Furthermore, attacks on Fox News are usually based not on Fox News' news programs but on its commentators, most prominently, Bill O'Reilly, which would be like assessing the quality of C.N.N. based on Larry King.

Europeans and Islamism

2004-11-17T22:57:00.000-05:00

The Europeans are such sophisticated people, unlike the Americans. To the Europeans, Islamism and Islamist terrorism are merely nuissances and Americans have overreacted or been manipulated into an irrational fright of them by the imperialistic, militaristic right-wing cabal for which George W. Bush is a front. Now, the Dutch, Belgians and Germans are implementing far harsher measures than even the Left's caricature of the Patriot Act, and have several of their politicians who are critics of Islam under police protection and in hiding.

Greek Peaceniks Turn Violent at Rally

2004-11-17T22:45:00.000-05:00

Greek communists and peaceniks (pardon the redundancy) turned violent while decrying the United States for having supported an anti-communist dictatorship in Greece in the 1970s and protesting the action the Forces for Free Iraq are taking against the Enemies of Free Iraq.

Funny, how peaceniks and self-described people of tolerance are violent and intolerant, while those they accuse of being warmongers and intolerant are peaceful and not only tolerant but respectful too. Of course, facts, logic and reasoned analysis are alien to Leftism, because anybody who uses them rejects Leftism.

Russians Developing New, Advanced Nuclear Missile

2004-11-17T22:28:00.000-05:00

Vladimir Putin, the president of the Russian Federation, said this week that the Russians are developing a new and advanced nuclear missile. The difference in reaction to this news with that which meets news of activity by the United States to develop new nuclear weapons is stark. None of the self-described peace-loving people has said a word about the Russians' activity, unlike the grave concern they express whenever the U.S. even considers any activity to modernize its nuclear arsenal or adapt it to the changed strategic reality. Their reactions differ because their motivation is not concern about nuclear weapons but is instead anti-Americanism.

'Canadian Identity'

2004-11-17T22:18:00.000-05:00

Bonnie Brown, an insignificant member of the parliament of Canada and a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, said the following about Canadian nationalists' relationship with Americans and the United States:

It's a concern with me, and as a legislator I feel my responsibility in that regard very strongly. The last thing in the world I want is for us to be noted as a nation by our acquiescence to other people's ideas.

The sentiment expressed by the Brown woman is shared by many Canadian nationalists. It is ironic therefore that they embrace uncritically practically the entire agenda of the United Nations and of transnational progressives. Furthermore, the sentiment is nothing more than a foolish not-invented-here mentality, which rejects any invention or idea from abroad, and which would be suicidal if it were actually practiced. Yet the sentiment is at the core of the Canadian identity, which is almost entirely a political construct which unifies Canadianism and Leftism.

'Fahrenhype 9/11'

2004-11-14T23:59:00.000-05:00

I just now watched the documentary film Fahrenhype 9/11, which exposes the lies, falsehoods, distortions, manipulations, and anti-Americanism of Michael Moore's propaganda film, Fahrenheit 9/11. It is a powerful film, a required antidote to the poison being propagated by the Left, and which everybody concerned about World War IV ought to watch.

Most people will never learn of the existence of Fahrenhype 9/11. Hollywood and the cultural cognoscenti will ignore it—unlike the promotion they gave Moore's anti-American propaganda film which gives aid and comfort to the enemy. That is because they share Moore's politics.

It is sad and ironic that the cultural elites of the freest country in the world—whose people have done more good, for more people than those of any other—hate the United States as much as its and Americans' enemies do, and are willing to produce and disseminate propaganda that aids and gives comfort to the enemy, an enemy who will not spare them the death and destruction he seeks to inflict on all Americans.

Fixed Income 'Woes'

2004-11-14T13:32:00.000-05:00

Whenever any subject involves retirees, particularly those older than the statutory mandatory age of retirement, eventually the Fixed Income card is played. The Fixed Income card argues that retirees are forced to live, paying for all their consumption of goods and services, from a specific income, which is fixed and unalterable, and which they cannot augment.

A specific income that is fixed and unalterable is, of course, a guaranteed income. And, although there are statutory prohibitions and penalties and physical limitations to retirees' ability to earn additional income to augment their fixed income, the opportunity for doing so does exist.

Contrast the situation of retirees with that of not-yet-retired (i.e., working-age) adults. Working-age adults, unlike retirees, have no guaranteed income. They must earn their income. For most working-age adults, their income is fixed and unalterable, just as it is for retirees. Few working-age adults can easily increase their income from their primary source of it. They do, just as retirees do, however, have the opportunity of augmenting their primary income from other activities. Whether they choose to do so, can do so, or are capable of doing so, is a different question.

Thus, the Fix Income card played in arguments on behalf of retirees is a fraud and a red herring. Retirees benefit from having a guaranteed income, a luxury which working-age adults do not have. Their complaint is that they wish that their income was higher, a complaint shared by everybody but the extremely wealthy. It is a ploy used by retirees' advocates in arguments that seek to have the government exact property from working-age adults and distribute it to retirees.

The Fix Income card is a ploy that must be exposed for the fraud that it is. And the rapacity on behalf of which it is employed must be exposed for the thieving greed that it is.

Arafat Funeral

2004-11-13T00:17:00.000-05:00

The mobs at the spectacle of the funeral for the godfather of Arab terrorism, Yasser Arafat, showed that his followers are savages, and that he was the chief headhunter. Such unruly, undignified and hysterical behavior is uncivilized. Any culture or society in which firing guns skyward is part of a celebration or mourning is barbaric. Of course, none of this is unusual or unexpected from a society that praises terrorists and suicide-murder bombers.

Arafat, Terrorist

2004-11-13T00:15:00.000-05:00

Andrew C. McCarthy has written another detailed article on Yasser "Terrorist" Arafat. Meantime, Aaron Mannes has written an article on how Arafat was connected to Al Qaeda.

Arafat, Arab Terrorist, Dead at 75, from Natural Causes

2004-11-10T23:47:00.000-05:00

Yasser Arafat, an Arab dictator and terrorist, and the godfather of Arab and Islamic terrorism, is dead. (See Andrew C. McCarthy's article on Arafat the terrorist here.) He died today from natural causes, at 75 years of age. That is unlike the thousands of victims he and his terrorist enterprise killed, whose lives were cut short, brutally and unnaturally. He has earned his soul eternal suffering in the seventh level of Hell. However, it is God, the Great Judge, who decides whether Arafat's soul deserves mercy, or eternal punishment.

Liberation of Fallujah Begins

2004-11-08T23:59:00.000-05:00

The Forces for Free Iraq, the Yanks and the free Iraqis, have launched an assault on Fallujah with the objective of clearing the city of the enemies of free Iraq who are using the city as a base.

This action must be firm and decisive, and must continue until all the terrorists are either killed or captured, with the former being preferable. There must be no pause or easing of the pressure applied. The pressure must be focused, but if it is necessary to destroy every adjacent house to one where any terrorist is located, it must be done. Any hostile action must be met with swift, overwhelming and decisive force. The terrorists and their abbettors have been given too many chances and too much time to surrender themselves, and have not only failed to do so, but have exploited the time to regroup, strengthen, resupply, deploy, murder and terrorize. They must now be thoroughly and humiliatingly crushed, like a cockroach under a boot. This must be done even if the whole city must be destroyed.

The Romans defeated the Carthaginians in battle but did not destroy them, after which the Carthaginians regrouped and after some years attacked again. The Romans defeated them in battle again, and did not stop until they destroyed Carthage completely, and thereafter they sowed the earth on which it had stood with salt, so that nothing would ever grow there again. The Forces for Free Iraq ought to consider doing the same. Fallujah deleda est.

Terrorism Not Result of Poverty, Study Finds

2004-11-08T23:56:00.000-05:00

Terrorism is not a result of poverty, but is instead related to political freedom, a Harvard researcher finds in a new study. That terrorists are usually from the upper middle-class has been the case and been known to be so for many decades. Indeed, it has probably always been the case. It does not however mean that terrorism is related to the upper middle-class. The new element of this study is that it finds that terrorism is related to political freedom.

French Deploy Overwhelming Force to Put Down Ivory Coast Insurrection

2004-11-08T23:20:00.000-05:00

The French have deployed overwhelming force to put down the insurrection in Ivory Coast, and have surrounded the home of the president of the the state with tanks.

Their immediate response by the French to the lawlessness, mayhem, and violence in Ivory Coast, and to the attack against them, was to deploy overwhelming military force. They did not engage in diplomacy and did not even entertain the notion of doing so. Nobody even suggested that they do so, much less urged them to do so. And nobody has condemned them for failing to do so. Indeed, they are not only justified in doing so, but it is also the only appropriate response.

Compare the reaction to the French action with that for any action by either the Americans or Israelis. The difference between the two is as stark as it is between day and night.

Bush Considers Thomas for Chief Justice

2004-11-07T21:21:00.000-05:00

George W. Bush is considering Clarence Thomas for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, according to the Drudge Report today.

William Rehnquist, the current Chief Justice, is old and ill with cancer. Many observers of the Supreme Court expect him to retire sometime in the next four years. Indeed, his age itself puts him at a high probability of dying over the next four years. Mr. Bush has said in the past, most notably during debates in 2000, that Antonin Scalia and Mr. Thomas are examples of the type of judge he would consider nominating for the Supreme Court.

Some have argued that Mr. Scalia is the best choice for Chief Justice. However, there are several reasons why Mr. Thomas is the better choice between the two Justices.

He is many years younger than Mr. Scalia, which means that he can be expected to remain as Chief Justice for a longer period of time.

He is more of a strict constructionist than is Mr. Scalia, and is therefore better suited to move the Court toward interpreting the Constitution in such a manner.

His style, both during arguments before the Court and in his writing, is cool, focused, substantive, reasoned, and collected, unlike Mr. Scalia's, which is often bombastic and incendiary, even though in his legal reasoning he is almost always in agreement with Mr. Thomas.

There are fewer things in his life than Mr. Scalia has that could be used to attack him.

The symbolism of promoting him, after he was been unjustifiably pilloried for such a long period of time, from the time of his confirmation hearings, and the fact that he is a black conservative, is monumental.

Mr. Thomas is a superb choice for Chief Justice. Mr. Bush would be wise to choose him.

Anti-Terrorism Efforts Increased in Iraq

2004-11-07T20:51:00.000-05:00

The Iraqis today declared a state of emergency throughout their country, with the exception of Kurdish areas, as part of a concerted anti-terrorism effort which includes a combined effort between the Iraqis and Yanks to clear the city of Fallujah of the enemies of free Iraq, who are using the city as a base. The Yanks have sealed off Fallujah and today captured a part of its outlying territory. A general gave a pre-combat speech to some of the Yanks who will be involved.

The pressure on Fallujans and the enemies of free Iraq in their city is building, like in a pressure cooker. They are now sealed in and must await their fate. They will try, as they did today, to cause death and mayhem in other parts of Iraq as a distraction. They will succeed only in causing death, mayhem and an intensified determination by the Iraqis and Yanks to destroy them.

Mayhem in Ivory Coast

2004-11-07T20:20:00.000-05:00

Mayhem continues in Ivory Coast. Ivorian mobs loyal to the government are roaming the capital seeking French and white victims to kill, in retaliation for the alleged designs of the French to overthrow the government. Other Ivorians in the capital are engaged in a looting spree. The Ivorian government has condemned French "aggression", after the French destroyed the Ivorian air force in retaliation for an airborne attack against them in which 8 of the French were killed. The United Nations Security Council held an emergency session and demanded a halt to military action, and said that the French and U.N. forces are authorized to use "all necessary means" to keep the peace. A spokesman for the French Defense Ministry said that the Americans are showing a "great understanding about French concerns in Ivory Coast".

As noted yesterday, the reaction to the situation in Ivory Coast has been very much dissimilar to the reaction to the situation in Iraq, even though the situations are similar. Consider whether the reaction to the situation would the same if it were Americans instead of French involved.

The 'Eagle' Won

2004-11-07T19:15:00.000-05:00

Recall the "Eagle" advertisement produced by the Democratic National Committee. It compared an eagle to an ostrich, but failed to specify which animal was supposed to be a metaphor for which candidate or polical party. It was remarked then that the advertisement was disastrous for such a reason, since many people would identify George W. Bush as the eagle, and John Kerry as the ostrich.

On election night, the eagle won, decisively and broadly, and has landed in the presidency and the White House for four more years.

Meantime, following their defeat, Democrats continue to be ostriches, blaming everybody and everything but themselves for their predicament: another strong rejection by the electorate, and continued relegation to being the minority party in America.

Communists Mark Anniversary of Russian Revolution with Protests

2004-11-07T19:08:00.000-05:00

Communists turned out in large numbers to protest on the anniversary of the Russian Revolution. The Russian government is considering discontinuing the holiday that exists to mark the day, which irks many communists, who still believe in the revolution and its achievements. Businesswoman Oksana Levina in Kiev, Ukraine, had the following retort about communists:

Those who make revolutions don't like to work. The principle of equality kills all initiative.

Rejected E.U. Commissioner to Form Christian Lobby

2004-11-07T18:52:00.000-05:00

Rocco Buttiglione, the commissioner-designate for European Union rejected by the E.U. after vehement opposition by Leftists because his views on abortion and homosexuality are in accord with his Roman Catholic faith, plans to form a lobby group to "battle for the freedom of Christians" in Europe. Following are some salient quotes of Mr. Buttiglione.

"In Europe, our intellectuals were always convinced that modernity brings with itself the extinction of religious faith. ... Now America, the most advanced country in the world, shows us that religion may be and indeed is a fundamental element of a free society and modern economy."

"They want a Catholic witch to burn. Well, here I am. What happened in the European Parliament is extremely serious. What they did was to say to someone that, since you adhere to your religious faith, you're not suitable to be a European Commissioner."

"What I am thinking of is a group to battle for the freedom of Christians, which is the freedom of everyone. A group to fight against the kind of creeping totalitarianism, which has emerged recently regarding my personal situation."

Bush's Re-Election 'Triumph of Hope', Aznar Writes

2004-11-07T18:43:00.000-05:00

Jose Maria Aznar, former prime minister of the government of the state of Spain, who suffered an election defeat following an Islamist terrorist attack on several train stations in Spain, writes in today's Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal about the significance of the re-election of George W. Bush. He begins thusly:

Hope has triumphed.

I know that some may be surprised to read this, but I am convinced of the fact.

Hope has triumphed, and with it the confidence of the American people in the values and principles on which our shared civilization on both sides of the Atlantic is based. George W. Bush decided to respond to totalitarian terrorist attacks with a return to basic principles. He could have chosen appeasement. He could have opted for mere rhetoric. He decided not to do so. He decided to oppose brutality with steadfast conviction. Now a wide majority of his people has backed this policy. It has confirmed that there is hope in our way of life, a form of hope that derives its strength from its essential convictions, a hope that is manifested in the desire to defend freedom above all else.

He follows by discussing the Islamist threat that confronts the civilized world, and what is being done to defeat it.

The article is lucid and powerful. Read it.

French, Targets of Ivory Coast Government, Mobs, Send Reinforcements

2004-11-06T23:56:00.000-05:00

The government air force attacked French "peacekeeping" soldiers, killing eight, as civil warfare resumed in Ivory Coast. Meantime, a mob attacked a French military base, while other mobs roamed the capital, seeking French targets to attack. The French retaliated, destroying several aircraft, which they said were used in the attack, at a military airport. The French also sent reinforcements to the country, and aircraft to neighboring Gabon.

The French sent soldiers to Ivory Coast in 2003 when civil war broke out and/or resumed after a period of relative calm. They did not consult with other governments and did not request or have approval for doing so from the United Nations or from the Ivorians. This followed their condemnation of the Americans for invading Iraq, as they said, "unilaterally" and without U.N. approval. However, the Americans invaded Iraq with a coalition of others, including the British. And, they had U.N. approval, for the Iraqis had violated the U.N. ceasefire agreement from the Persian Gulf War and U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 specifically stated that Iraqi failure to comply fully with disarmament demands would incur "severe consequences". Neither the Americans nor anbody else objected to or condemned the French action.

The situation in Ivory Coast has similarities to the situation in Iraq. However, whereas the Iraqis posed a threat to their region and to the world because of their determination to acquire nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and because they had connections to and relations with terrorists, the Ivorians posed a threat only to themselves. In both countries, the occupying armies are targets for attacks by elements within the respective countries.

The press and the Left has portrayed the attacks against the Americans in Iraq as legitimate, and the American presence there as illegitimate. Their reporting and focus on American casualties is pornographic. Their treatment of the French in Ivory Coast has, conversely, been favorable to the French and hostile to the Ivorians. Whereas, terrorists, murders, assassins, saboteurs, goons and thugs in Iraq are described as "rebels", "insurgents" and "resistance", the Ivorians seeking French targets are described as "mobs". The connotations of the words "rebel", "insurgent" and "resitance" are positive; of "mobs, negative. Yet, the particular Ivorians could be described as "patriots", and the particular elements in Iraq could be described as "reactionary" and "rejectionist". The particular Ivorians, however, are indeeds mobs; and the particular elements in Iraq are enemes of free Iraq, or reactionary rejectionists.

Iraqi Politics Flourishes

2004-11-06T23:45:00.000-05:00

Iraqi politics is flourishing, with parties and interests organizing, negotiating alliances, forming party platforms, developing community networks, and recruiting candidates, the New York Times reports today. Meantime, some are concerned about the eligibility rules for candidates, worried that they are too vague and broad and may therefore be used to exclude potential candidates, the Washington Post reports today.

The first development is good news, especially the fact that politicians and parties are seeking support throughout Iraq and not just regionally or along ethnic or communal lines. The second development shows that high-minded foreigners are more concerned about allowing Baathists, criminals and the uneducated to be candidates for politcal office than Iraqis are. And also, that post-modern deconstructionist attitudes toward elections and electoral rules are, like a genie that has been released from its bottle, disrupting and corroding elections everywhere.

Iraqi Sunnis Make Major Shift, Make Offer for Upcoming Election

2004-11-06T23:34:00.000-05:00

The situation in Iraq is changing in a favorable way for free Iraq. Iraqi Sunnis have made a major shift in their attitude and changed their position toward the elections in January 2005. They made an offer regarding the structure of the elections in exchange for their participation in them.

The Washington Post attributes the Sunnis' change of attitude to the increasing pressure being applied by the Iraqis and Americans on Fallujans. It is indeed certain that they will conduct an operation to clear Fallujah of enemies of free Iraq in the near future, unless Fallujans themselves act to rid their city of the enemy elements. However, it is not the reason for the Sunnis' change of attitude.

The re-election of George W. Bush—which the Post fails to note—is the reason for the Sunnis' change of attitude. With Mr. Bush as president until 2008, it is certain that free Iraq will have a protector until, during, and for as long as is required following the elections in January 2005, and also that there will be elections and that they will be in January 2005. Neither free Iraq nor the elections in January 2005 will be abandoned. John Kerry did not offer such certainty.

The Sunnis' change of attitude is a result of realizing that now they cannot sabotage the elections and free Iraq. Their only means now to secure their interests is participation in the electons and in the governing structures of free Iraq.

The Sunnis' participation in them will give the elections greater legitimacy, and their participation in the governing structures of free Iraq afterwards will give momentum and support to free Iraq. The work of securing, building and governing Iraq will still be hard, but it will be easier when all Iraqis are participants and stakeholders in the results.

The decisive factor is Mr. Bush.

10,000 U.N., French "Peacekeepers" Fail to Keep Peace in Ivory Coast

2004-11-05T23:53:00.000-05:00

War resumed in Ivory Coast, with government airplanes bombing rebel targets, as 6,000 United Nations and 4,000 French "peacekeepers" fail to keep peace in the country.

Many critics of George W. Bush and his approach to U.S. national security put great stock in the capability of the United Nations and the French to help solve troublespots. The situation in Ivory Coast is yet another example of the incompetence of the two, and of the foolishness of such notions.

Canadian Intelligence Warns of Bin Laden's Nuclear Intentions

2004-11-05T23:52:00.000-05:00

Canadian intelligence considers Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda to have nuclear intentions and to be possibly already in possession of suitcase-sized nuclear bombs, produced by the Soviets and sold by Rusians on the black market. Canadians and their government may be dismissive and cavalier about the Islamist threat, but at least their spies are not suffering from the same delusion.

Canadians Claim Holocaust Denier Jailed for 18 Months Is Threat

2004-11-05T23:51:00.000-05:00

The government of the state of Canada has held Ernst Zundel, a prominent Holocaust denier, in jail for 18 months while it conducts deportation proceedings against him. The government, on the basis of determinations made by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, considers his to be a threat, even though the Federal Bureau of Investigation has ruled otherwise. The government has adduced no proof in support of its claim. The silence of those Canadians who bewail the detention of terrorists, murderers, assassins and thugs at Guantanamo Bay about their government's detention of a man whose only offense is to hold odious views is deafening.

Martin Reappoints Head of State Broadcaster

2004-11-05T23:50:00.000-05:00

Paul Martin, the prime minister of the government of Canada, today reappointed the head of the state's broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (C.B.C.). The C.B.C. is a big fish in the Canadian broadcasting waters. It is notoriously Leftist, anti-American, anti-conservative, anti-libertarian and anti-Christian (pardon all the redundancies). It is an arm of the government and disseminates pro-government propaganda. Since the government is always Leftist, the propaganda is always Leftist. As bad as C.B.S. News, Peter Jennings and C.N.N. are, the C.B.C. is worse. Yet, astoundingly and sadly, many Canadians consider it a reliable and trustworthy source of information.

Money-Laundering Up Sharply in Canada, a Terrorist Financial Haven

2004-11-05T23:31:00.000-05:00

Allowing their country to become a financial haven for terrorists demonstrates that Canadians actually are the tolerant people that Canadian nationalists proclaim them to be. So long as the person or notion is of the Left and/or anti-American (pardon the redundancy), Canadians are tolerant. However, they are intolerant of Christians, conservatives and libertarians. Canadians may consider judgementalism abhorent, but they are highly judgemental of the aforementioned groups. Such judgementalism is unreasoned and bigoted, and intended to enforce conformity to Leftist collectivist ideology.

Martin Refuses to Dump Anti-American Bigot from His Government

2004-11-05T23:17:00.000-05:00

Paul Martin, the prime minister of the government of the state of Canada, and the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, refuses to dump a member of his government for repeatedly making anti-American slurs. The bigot, Carolyn Parrish, who represents a district in the Mississauga suburb of Toronto, has called Americans "bastards", said she "hates them", and referred to supporters of missile defense as the "coalition of the idiots". On Wednesday, she said she was "dumbfounded" that Americans re-elected George W. Bush, since, as she said, he is a "war-like man". Of course, her bigoted views are symptomatic and reinforcing of a psychosis, which causes her to perceive a false reality, which when breached by reality causes dumbfoundness.

Mr. Martin said that the Parrish woman is not a member of his cabinet and does not speak for the government or the Liberal caucus. He distanced himself from her and her remarks but did not eject her from the party's caucus and has no intention of doing so. He has no intention of punishing her.

Mr. Martin is the leader of his party and therefore has the power to discipline its members, and to eject them from the party. His failure to do more than distance himself from her and her remarks is a failure of leadership if he indeed disagrees with her.

Furthermore, given the way the Canadian government works, she is, contrary to Mr. Martin's attempt to separate the government from the majority party's elected members of parliament, a member of the government, of which he, as prime minister, is the leader. The reason that this is so is because Canadians cannot vote for the head of their government. They can vote only for local representatives. The leader of the party with the highest number of its members elected to the legislature becomes the prime minister, the head of government, and forms the government. So, although voters cast their ballots for local representatives, the representatives are mere proxies for the leaders of the respective parties, and voting for them is a proxy to register a preference for prime minister. The representatives are in effect electors, with each district representing one electoral vote, and each district being a separate electoral contest. The leader of the party with the most electors becomes the prime minister. These electors however are elected to and serve in the legistature. Also, the prime minister must maintain an electoral majority continuously so long as he is prime minister. The test of an electoral majority does not occur only once, immediately following an election. Therefore, because they sustain the government, all the electors are de facto members of the government, even if they are outside the cabinet. Thus, the Parrish woman is a member of the Canadian government and is a member of Mr. Martin's government.

Unless he ejects her from the party or from the legislature, Mr. Martin accepts that she speaks on behalf of the government, even if other members of the government disagree with her remarks.

Bush Holds Press Conference to Discuss Goals for Second Term

2004-11-04T11:59:00.000-05:00

President George W. Bush held a press conference today at which he discussed his goals for his second term. The items are those he discussed in his acceptance speech at the Republican national convention, and which he discussed continually during the campaign. Noteworthy about his presentation today was his determination to reform Social Security and the tax code. It was much stronger than it has been heretofore.

The tax code is a mess and is a drag on the economy. Mr. Bush is determined to continue to reduce taxes, to eliminate penalties and disincentives to saving and investment, and to simplify the tax code.

Social Security is a crisis which every knowledgeable and reasonable person knows exists, and it has been known for decades. The trouble in addressing it has been that: 1) its impact is still many years in the future; and 2) Democrats, while they were the majority party, which they were at all levels of government until the mid 1990s, were successful at demagoguing Social Security, accusing Republicans of secretly planning to terminate the program, and presenting themselves as its defenders. Now, Republicans are the majority party, dominating both the federal and the state levels of government. Their policies of lower taxes, freer markets and smaller government, which were first introduced by Ronald Reagan in 1980, have resulted in prosperity and an increase in the number of Americans who are investors, now more than half the population, compared to less than 10 percent before 1980. As a result, Americans are comfortable with investing and no longer consider Social Security a good or safe use of their money. The dynamics have therefore changed in a number of ways that make reform of Social Security now possible. It is not however inevitable, for many Democrats continue to demagogue on the matter, John Kerry being the latest example. Thus, it is critical to have a president who is determined to lead on the matter and who is determined to get results. Mr. Bush is such a president.

Mr. Bush could become one of the most consequential of all presidents. He has already done much to reform the tax code. He has liberated Afghanistan and Iraq. He has shut down A. Q. Khan's nuclear black market. He has persuaded Moamar Gadhafi, the dictator of the state of Libya, to surrender his nuclear and chemical weapons, materials, equipment and plans. He has waged war against Islamism, a cult whose followers seek to commit genocide of all unbelievers and apostates, and engage in acts of human sacrifice to their god. If he effects reform of Social Security and the tax code, and he continues to advance liberty and security in the world, he will have accomplished very much indeed, and he will be one of the most consequenial of all presidents.

Bush Wins!

2004-11-03T22:58:00.000-05:00

George W. Bush has been re-elected as president. He won decisively and broadly, winning by higher margins than in the 2000 election in those states he won both then and in 2004, losing by lower margins than in the 2000 election in those states he lost both then and in 2004, and winning a higher total number of electoral votes than he did in 2000. The Bush campaign put out a list of additional strong achievements.

Mr. Bush won in spite of being subjected to criticism and attacks continually since the beginning of the campaign of 2000. The establishment press—called the "partisan press" by Rush Limbaugh, and "mainstream media" (M.S.M.) or "Old Media" or "Big Media" by conservative and libertarian bloggers and columnists—has been notably and notoriously hostile to him, aligning itself with John Kerry, his Democrat challenger.

Old Media produced several spurious reports—all exposed by bloggers within 6 hours as baseless or fraudulent—attacking Mr. Bush, and which within 24 hours became the subject of advertisements by Mr. Kerry attacking Mr. Bush.

Old Media continued its partisan animosity towards Mr. Bush on the night of the election, waiting much longer to project him the winner of states than they did for Mr. Kerry, even though he was leading by much higher margins. Such tactics were explained as caution. It does not however explain the discrepancy between the several hours' time for the television networks to project Florida as a win for Mr. Bush, where Mr. Bush was leading by a 5 percentage point margin, and the quick projection of Pennsylvania as a win for Mr. Kerry, where Mr. Kerry was leading by only 1 percentage point. Nor does it explain why most networks abstained from projecting Ohio as a win for Mr. Bush, even though his margin of victory was some 125,000 votes, or about 2.5 percent.

Mr. Bush's strong win was accompanied by strong Republican gains in the United States Senate, where the G.O.P. increased its majority by 4 seats, for a new total of 55 seats. Republicans also gained 4 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Because of the increased majorities and changes in the composition of them, both the House and the Senate are now more conservative. This ought to bode well for advancing conservative policy. A particularly delicious G.O.P. victory is John Thune's defeat of Tom Daschle, the Democrats' leader in the senate, in South Dakota. A sweet irony to it is that Mr. Thune, the candidate who had the best chance of defeating Mr. Daschle, is widely considered to have been robbed of a win in the senate election in 2002 against a different Democrat. Had Mr. Thune won then, Mr. Daschle would not have lost.

Conservatives are also enjoying the victory of constitutional amendments to protect marriage passing in all 11 states where they were on the ballot.

Zarqawi's Goons Slaughter, Saw Off Head of Japanese Hostage

2004-11-02T20:01:00.000-05:00

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's goons slaughtered and sawed off the head of Shosei Koda, the Japanese man they were holding hostage. They filmed the ritualistic human sacrifice to their cult's god and posted the snuff film online, for the pleasure of their fellow cultists worldwide.

Kerik: "When I Cast My Vote, I Am Going to Remember ..."

2004-11-02T01:06:00.000-05:00

Bernard Kerik, who was chief of the New York police on 11 September 2001, writes today why he will vote for George W. Bush. He summarizes and concludes his article thusly:

When I cast my vote, I am going to remember these moments. I am going to remember what I lost on 9/11, and how I felt on that morning. I'm going to reflect on what I would have thought on that day if I had heard someone like John Kerry speak to me about global tests, about nuisances, about how this day "didn't change me much at all."

And then I am going to vote for President George W. Bush.

Mr. Kerik has written clearly and concisely the American test.

Top Russian Air Force General Assassinated

2004-11-01T23:50:00.000-05:00

United Press International reports today that a top general of the Russian air force was assassinated over the weekend as he was returning from his home in Belarus to Moscow. This event is suspicious. Last week the Washington Times reported that Russian special forces had moved, hiden or destroyed Saddam Hussein's prohibited weapons and equipment, materials and plans for their production. The Times also reported last week that two high-ranking Russian generals were given awards in Iraq by Saddam Hussein's regime only 10 days before the war to oust Saddam. In the weeks immediately before and after the start of the war, there were reports of transport aircraft flying from Iraq to Belarus. The Russians were the top military suppliers to Saddam, had extensive commercial relations with Iraqis, and were the top business partners in the corrupt United Nations Oil-for-Food program. Belarus is run by a Stalinist autocrat whose regime has close ties with the Russian establishment. This assassination could be part of an effort to destroy evidence and witnesses to the Russians' assistance of Saddam.

Bin Laden Threatens Red States, Outlines Plot to Bankrupt U.S.

2004-11-01T23:33:00.000-05:00

There are two new developments regarding the Usama bin Laden video from last Friday. First, the Middle East Media Research Institute reports that the translations released following the airing of the video were misleading, referring to states generally instead of to U.S. states specifically. Bin Laden was therefore threatening people in states where a majority of voters will vote for George W. Bush, and alternatively promising peace to people in states where a candidate other than Mr. Bush, i.e., John Kerry, receives a majority of votes. Second, in the previously unaired portion of the video, bin Laden outlines his plan to bankrupt the United States. Al Jazeera has a transcript of the full video.

Bush for President

2004-11-01T23:16:00.000-05:00

One of two men—George W. Bush, the incumbent, and John Kerry, the challenger—will become the next president of the United States of America. Both men are imperfect, as all people are. Neither is committed to limited, constitutional government. Both are advocates of big, intrusive government. They differ mainly only its magnitude: Mr. Kerry advocates a bigger, more intrusive government than does Mr. Bush. On this measure alone, Mr. Bush is the better choice for president.

The critical question in this election, however, is an existential one. Islamists have declared war against, and attacked, the civilized world and the United States, which is its champion. The danger of nuclear proliferation, to totalist regimes and Islamists is real. The totalist regimes are—as are all collectivist regimes, which deny the fundamental right of the right to life—aggressively anti-American, because Americans and the United States are the champions of individualism and the right to life. Islamists are fanatical messianists whose cult obliges them to commit genocide of all unbelievers, consider the killing of anybody deemed to be an unbeliever to be a human sacrifice to their god, seek the total domination of the world, and consider death in the advancement of their cult to lead to eternal paradise. The totalist regimes trade nuclear materials and technology amongst themselves. Many totalist regimes are also Islamist regimes, or have strong Islamist factions, or are sympathetic to Islamists, whether because they both consider America their enemy or otherwise. Mr. Bush recognizes this danger, has discarded the failed policies that allowed this danger to develop, adopted new policies that seek to destroy the Islamist enemy and change the dynamic in the Islamic world to one less conducive to such fanaticism, created new alliances and structures to counter proliferation, and changed the dynamics of counter-proliferation. Mr. Kerry opposes all these actions and wishes to return to the status quo that prevailed before Mr. Bush discarded it as antiquated, ineffective, counterproductive and dangerous to Americans, to the United States, to the civilized world, and indeed to the world. On the existential question of who is better to keep us alive—or alternatively, who is better to protect life—Mr. Bush stands alone and is the clearly the better choice for president.

On the question therefore of who is better to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness Mr. Bush is clearly the better choice for president.

Bush for president.

U.S. to Stop Paying for Airport at Midway Atoll; Airlines Upset

2004-10-30T22:18:00.000-05:00

The New York Times reports today that the United States has decided to stop paying for the airport on Midway Atoll. The airport is used mainly for emergency landings by transpacific flights, other such locations in and around the Pacific Ocean being spread far apart, with no other location nearby.

Many airlines are upset at the decision and are seeking its reversal. The closure of the airport on Midway Atoll would force airlines to reroute their flights or cancel some routes. Aviation rules require that twin-engined airplanes fly within a certain range of the nearest suitable airport; no such restriction exists for airplanes with more than two engines. Rerouting flights would result in longer travel times and increased fuel use and related costs. Some operators would cancel some affected routes.

The U.S. decision to stop paying for the airport is good. Having the U.S. pay for it is a subsidy to those airlines who benefit from having the airport. The airlines which are the benificiaries of the airport should be paying for it if nobody else is willing to do so. They must decide whether the cost of keeping the airport open and usable for emergency landings is more or whether it is less than the cost of rerouting flights and the lost profits resulting from both the cancellation of routes and the loss of business because of longer travel times.

2 Russian Generals Given Awards in Iraq from Saddam Days Before War

2004-10-30T22:03:00.000-05:00

Bill Gertz's report for the Washington Times today that two high-ranking Russian generals were given awards in Iraq by Saddam Hussein's regime only 10 days before the war adds to the evidence that suggests that the Russians were both helping Saddam arm his regime and helping him to hide, destroy or transfer abroad his weapons of mass destruction and related equipment and plans.

Chemical Weapons May Have Been Looted from an Iraqi Munitions Dump

2004-10-30T21:54:00.000-05:00

The Associated Press reports today that a looted Iraqi munitions dump may have contained old, pre-1991 chemical weapons. The Iraqis said, after the 1991 war, that sarin-filled artillery rockets were stored there. The United Nations weapons inspectors sealed up the bunker instead of inspecting and clearing it because it was unsafe to work in the damaged bunker. The formal report issued two weeks ago by the United States' Iraq Survey Group, formed after the second war, noted, contradictorily, both that chemical weapons are still stored there and that the bunker's contents have yet to be confirmed. It is unclear whether the inspectors of the I.S.G. inspected the facility. The chemical weapons in question at the site in question are not considered to have been in violation of the U.N. weapons ban because the Iraqis had declared them and were under U.N. control.

This seems to be another example that bolsters George W. Bush's case for invading Iraq and that brings into question the efficacy of the U.N. weapons inspectors. Regardless of whether the Iraqis had declared the particular weapons at the particular site, and regardless of whether they were under U.N. control—both of which technically put the Iraqis in compliance with the U.N. ban on such weapons—the fact is that the Iraqis had such weapons, that it was unknown where such weapons actually were, that U.N. control was only in form and not in fact, and that such weapons, even if under formal U.N. control were easily accessible by the Iraqis.

"Bin Laden", "Azzam the American" Rants Sound Like Leftists' Screeds

2004-10-29T22:18:00.000-05:00

Today, Al Jazeera, the favorite television network of Islamists and Jihadis, aired a new video featuring Usama bin Laden or a surgically-created double of him. The Drudge Report has a transcript of the broadcast. This follows A.B.C.'s report yesterday of a video featuring a covered man identifying himself as a member of Al Qaeda and calling himself "Azzam the American". Both men's rants sound like typical Leftist screeds against George W. Bush and the top members of his administration, the Bush family, Americans' theft of Arabs' oil, Americans, and the United States. Both videos could pass for MoveOn.org productions. Except for the difference in language and the accent in the speech, respectively, of the two Islamists from that of Al Gore's known range of language and locution, either could be Mr. Gore dressed up in a Halloween costume, giving his latest screed.

The two videos are contradictory in their messages. Bin Laden seems resigned to go down in defeat, resulting from American and allied victories in Aghanistan, Pakistan, the Philippines, Iraq, Yemen, the disputed territories, Libya, Italy, Great Britain, the United States, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Spain—this is sounding like a Howard Dean "yeeaaargh!" moment. And, indeed, it is a Deanian primal scream moment—for bin Laden and his followers, who must be screaming in frustration at the humiliating defeat they a suffering, both military and ideological, including in the countries where they thought they had sanctuary and popular support. Bin Laden whines about Americans' supposed oppression of Arabs, and says that his and his followers' attacks were acts of retribution. He says nothing significant—at least in the part of the video that was aired—about killing Americans or any others, or about any plans of conquest, as he has in the past.

The covered man, too cowardly or ugly to show his face, is a nobody—and having covered his face, he has chosen to remain so—ranting about massacring Americans wholesale and about blood-drenched American streets. His novelty is that he speaks English. As such, there is the element of communicating that fanaticism such as his and of other members of Al Qaeda can develop or exist even in American society. However, his position as a spokesman for Al Qaeda would have been enhanced had the video shown him being introduced by bin Laden or some other Al Qaeda leader, where such a leader had said something to give the covered nobody the imprimatur of speaking on behalf of Al Qaeda. Bin Laden's whining only a few days later undermines the covered nobody's rant.

So, within the last few days we have seen a covered nobody ranting bravado, and bin Laden, the messianic Muslim hero, whining. Its not over, and there may be more setbacks, but Mr. Bush is winning World War IV, and bin Laden's whining proves it.

Following is the transcript of Al Jazeera's airing of the bin Laden video.

Newsreader: A new message from Bin Laden to the American people about the reasons and results of the 9/11 attacks.

Newsreader 2: The head of Al Qaeda says the continuation of us policy will lead to the repetition of what happened.

Male presenter: The head of Al Qaeda organization directed a message to the American people and this video and audio appearance in this tape which Jazeera required for the first time for two years. In the beginning of his message, he spoke about the reasons why they chose the US to execute 9/11.

U.B.L.: You American people, my speech to you is the best way to avoid another conflict about the war and its reasons and results. I am telling you security is an important pillar of human life. And free people don't let go of their security contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom. He should tell us why we didn't hit Sweden for instance. Its known that those who hate freedom don't have dignified souls, like the 19 who were blessed. But we fought you because we are free people, we don't sleep on our oppression. We want to regain the freedom of our Muslim nation as you spill our security, we spill your security.

Female presenter: Bin Laden spoke for the first time about the main reasons he thought of executing Sept 11 attacks, confirming that the Israeli operation in Lebanon was the first incident where he thought of it.

U.B.L.: I am so surprised by you. Although we are in the fourth year after the events of Sept 11, Bush is still practicing distortion and misleading on you, and obscuring the main reasons and therefore the reasons are still existing to repeat what happened before. I will tell you the reasons behind theses incidents.

I will be honest with you on the moment when the decision was taken to understand. We never thought of hitting the towers. But after we were so fed up, and we saw the oppression of the American Israeli coalition on our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind and the incidents that really touched me directly goes back to 1982 and the following incidents. When the U.S. permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon with the assistance of the 6th fleet. In these hard moments, it occurred to me so many meanings I cant explain but it resulted in a general feeling of rejecting
oppression and gave me a hard determination to punish the oppressors. While I was looking at the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it came to my mind to punish the oppressor the same way and destroy towers in the U.S. to get a taste of what they tasted, and quit killing our children and women.

Male presenter: Bin Laden considered in his message that the results of Sept 11 were successful in his opinion and as a reason of that, he said that the similarity between the administration of Bush the father and the Arab regimes said Bush learned so much from them during his visits.

U.B.L.: We didn't find difficulty dealing with Bush and his administration due to the similarity of his regime and the regimes in our countries. Whish half of them are ruled by military and the other half by sons of kings and presidents and our experience with them is long. Both parties are arrogant and stubborn and the greediness and taking money without right and that similarity appeared during the visits of Bush to the region while people from our side were impressed by the US and hoped that these visits would influence our countries. Here he is being influenced by these regimes, Royal and military. And was feeling jealous they were staying for decades in power stealing the nations finances without anybody overseeing them. So he transferred the oppression of freedom and tyranny to his son and they call it the Patriot Law to fight terrorism. He was bright in putting his sons as governors in states and he didn't forget to transfer his experience from the rulers of our region to Florida to falsify elections to benefit from it in critical times.

Female Presenter: Bin Laden considered the way Bush dealt with the first moments of Sept. 11, giving a good chance to the executors of Sept. 11 to complete it.

U.B.L.: We agreed with Mohamed Atta, god bless him, to execute the whole operation in 20 minutes. Before Bush and his administration would pay attention and we never thought that the high commander of the U.S. armies would leave 50 thousand of his citizens in both towers to face the horrors by themselves when they most needed him because it seemed to distract his attention from listening to the girl telling him about her goat butting was more important than paying attention to airplanes butting the towers which gave us three times the time to execute the operation thank god.

Male presenter: the final part of the message is that the security of the Americans depends on the policy that they execute despite the winner of the elections.

U.B.L.: Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your hands. Each state that doesn't mess with our security has automatically secured their security.

Female Presenter: In Bin Laden's message he approached other points. He pointed to the contradiction which considers oppression and killing of innocents a legal act. They formed an international law as bush the father did with the children of Iraq according to bin laden. Bin Laden pointed to the millions of pounds of explosives dropped on Iraqi children as bush his son had done, as he said to remove an old agent and install a new agent to help in stealing the oil of Iraq. And bin laden said the events of 9/11 came as an answer to this oppression and said that if the answer to this oppression is considered bad terror, then we need to do it. And he stressed that he wants to deliver this message to the Americans in words and in deeds since the 9/11 events. He reminded Americans of a few warning messages through various news media like Time Magazine and C.N.N. and other Arab and correspondents since 1996. He warned them of the consequences of their countries policies. He talked about the damage Sept 11 caused the U.S. economy and that it cost close to a trillion dollars. He talked about President Bush and that the emergency law requires more money.

Muslim Leader Apologizes, Offers Resignation, Rejected by His Group

2004-10-28T18:35:00.000-05:00

The Globe and Mail reports today that Mohamed Elmasry apologized again, except this time he is specific in condemning the murder of "civilians", unlike his previous attempt. Deception on his part is suspected because he expressed during his now-infamous remarks that all adult Israelis are military targets because they all must perform military service. He also offered his group, the Canadian Islamic Congress, his resignation. The group accepted the apology but rejected the resignation. Both the offer and the rejection have the appearance of theater intended to deceive the credulous, since he is the head of the group and is both representative of its views and controls its decision-making aparatus. More groups—the Muslim Canadian Congress, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Canadian Autoworkers Union, the Canadian Coalition for Democracies and B'nai Brith Canada—have called for Mr. Elmasry's resignation, extending to a wider section of Canadians than has been reported heretofore. Also, Tarek Fatah, co-founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, said:

In refusing to step aside, Elmasry and the C.I.C. have demonstrated the authoritarian and dictatorial nature of their structure. ... They purport to speak for Canada's 600,000 Muslims, but are not accountable or answerable to them. ... We demand he not ... masquerade as leader of the community.

Russians Moved Saddam's Weapons to Syria in Weeks Before War

2004-10-28T07:23:00.000-05:00

Bill Gertz reports for the Washington Times today that the Russians were intensively involved in moving and hiding Saddam Hussein's and his regime's weapons and related goods from out of Iraq to Syria and elsewhere. Following are the salient items.

"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. [John A.] Shaw [the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security] said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."

Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration.

Most of Saddam's most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.

...

The Pentagon disclosed yesterday that the Al-Qaqaa facility was defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units during the conflict. U.S. forces defeated the defenders around April 3 and found the gates to the facility open, the Pentagon said in a statement yesterday.

A military unit in charge of searching for weapons, the Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force, then inspected Al-Qaqaa on May 8, May 11 and May 27, 2003, and found no high explosives that had been monitored in the past by the IAEA.

The Pentagon said there was no evidence of large-scale movement of explosives from the facility after April 6.

"The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd Infantry Division's arrival at the facility," the statement said.

...

A second defense official said documents on the Russian support to Iraq reveal that Saddam's government paid the Kremlin for the special forces to provide security for Iraq's Russian arms and to conduct counterintelligence activities designed to prevent U.S. and Western intelligence services from learning about the arms pipeline through Syria.

...

the most important and useful arms and explosives appear to have been separated and moved out as part of carefully designed program. "The organized effort was done in advance of the conflict," Mr. Shaw said.

The Russian forces were tasked with moving special arms out of the country.

Mr. Shaw said foreign intelligence officials believe the Russians worked with Saddam's Mukhabarat intelligence service to separate out special weapons, including high explosives and other arms and related technology, from standard conventional arms spread out in some 200 arms depots.

...

The Russian units were dispatched beginning in January 2003 and by March had destroyed hundreds of pages of documents on Russian arms supplies to Iraq while dispersing arms to Syria, the second official said.

Besides their own weapons, the Russians were supplying Saddam with arms made in Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria and other Eastern European nations, he said.

"Whatever was not buried was put on lorries and sent to the Syrian border," the defense official said.

Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.

The director of the Iraqi government front company known as the Al Bashair Trading Co. fled to Syria, where he is in charge of monitoring arms holdings and funding Iraqi insurgent activities, the official said.

Also, an Arabic-language report obtained by U.S. intelligence disclosed the extent of Russian armaments. The 26-page report was written by Abdul Tawab Mullah al Huwaysh, Saddam's minister of military industrialization, who was captured by U.S. forces May 2, 2003.

The Russian "spetsnaz" or special-operations forces were under the GRU military intelligence service and organized large commercial truck convoys for the weapons removal, the official said.

Bush Says He Is the Better Choice for Traditional Democrats

2004-10-27T22:51:00.000-05:00

George W. Bush said the following, directed at traditional Democrats, at a campaign rally in Lititz, Pennsylvania, today.

As the citizens of this nation prepare to vote, I want to speak directly to the Democrats. I'm a proud Republican, but I believe my policies appeal to many Democrats. In fact, I believe my opponent is running away from some of the great traditions of the Democrat Party. If you're a Democrat and you want America to be strong and confident in our ideals, I'd be honored to have your vote.

The Democratic Party has a great tradition of leading this country with strength and conviction in times of war and crisis. I think of Franklin Roosevelt's commitment to total victory. I think of Harry Truman's clear vision at the beginning of the Cold War. I think of John Kennedy's brave declaration of American ideals. President Kennedy said: "The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."

Many Democrats look at my opponent and wonder where the—that great tradition of their party has gone. My opponent takes a narrow, defensive view of the war on terror. As the United States of America hunts down the terrorists and liberates millions from tyranny, and aids the rise of liberty in distant lands, my opponent counsels retreat, votes against supporting our troops in combat, downplays the power of democracy, and accepts and adopts a narrow so-called realism that is little more than defeatism. I believe American leadership is the hope of the repressed, the source of our great security, and the greatest force for good in this world. I believe the liberation of captive peoples is a noble achievement that all Americans can be proud of.

If you are a Democrat who wants America to lead with strength and idealism, I would be honored to have your vote.

...

Americans of both political parties have always had respect and reverence for the institution of marriage. Never in our history has marriage been a partisan issue; it's not a partisan issue today. Yet, many Democrats look at my opponent and wonder, where is his commitment to defending the basic institution of civilization. He says he supports marriage, but he'll do nothing to defend it. My opponent even voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. More than two-thirds of Democrats in the Senate supported that act, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law. On the issue of protecting marriage, the Senator from Massachusetts is outside the mainstream of America, and outside the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

I believe that our society must show tolerance and respect for every individual; yet I do not believe this commitment of tolerance requires us to redefine marriage. If you are a Democrat who believes that marriage should be protected from activist judges, I'd be honored to have your vote.

...

The Democrat Party has also a great tradition of defending the defenseless. I remember the strong conscience of the late Democratic Governor from Pennsylvania, Robert Casey, who once said that when we look to the unborn child, the real issue is not when life begins, but when love begins. I remember the moral clarity of the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democrat of New York, who said that partial birth abortion is "as close to infanticide as anything I have ever come upon." Many Democrats look at my opponent and see an attitude that is much more extreme. He says that life begins at conception, but denies that our caring society should prevent even partial birth abortion.

Preventing partial birth abortion is an ethical conviction shared by many people of every faith, and by people who have no religion at all. I understand good people disagree on the life issue. So I've worked with Republicans and Democrats to find common ground on difficult questions and to move this good-hearted nation toward a culture of life. If you're a Democrat who believes that our society must always have room for the voiceless and the vulnerable, I would be honored to have your vote.

There are Democrats all over America, north and south, east and west, who believe their party's nominee does not share their deepest values. I know the Democrats are not going to agree with me on every issue. Yet on the big issues of our country's security, victory in the war against terror, improving our public schools, respecting marriage and human life, I hope people who usually vote for the other party will take a close look at my agenda. If you're a Democrat, and your dreams and goals are not found in the far left wing of the Democrat Party, I'd be honored to have your vote. And next Tuesday, I ask you stand with me.

Cheney Attacks Kerry for Being Leftist Armchair General

2004-10-27T22:42:00.000-05:00

Dick Cheney said the following at a campaign rally in Washington, Pennsylvania, today.

John Kerry will say and do anything to get elected. Most recently, he's been charging that American forces did not do enough to protect a weapons facility in Iraq, with the result that some 380 tons of explosives disappeared. But John Kerry doesn't know if those explosives were even at the weapons facility when our troops arrived. The charge he is making is so wild that his own advisors are saying they don't know if it's true. But John Kerry is not a man to let a shortage of facts bother him.

He rushed out to put up a TV ad saying there was a failure to secure these explosives, when he has no idea if they were even there to be secured. The title of John Kerry's TV ad is Obligation, which is pretty ironic if you think about it: The first obligation of a Commander-in-Chief is to support our men and women in combat. Which John Kerry failed to do a year ago when he voted against the funding they needed, and which he is failing to do now by making accusations without knowing the facts. Our troops ought to be praised for the 400,000 tons of weapons and explosives they've captured. At the same time, they've been building schools, training Iraqi forces, fighting an insurgency, they've seized 400,000 tons and are in the process of destroying them. These brave men and women deserve better than to have their actions called into question by a political candidate who is so ambitious, he can't wait for the facts.

John Kerry is playing armchair general, and he's not doing a very good job of it. This shouldn't surprise us given his weak record on national security. He first ran for Congress advocating the idea that we should deploy American troops only under the authority of the United Nations.

He ran for the Senate on the platform that we should dismantle most of the major weapons systems Ronald Reagan used to keep the peace and win the Cold War.

In 1991, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and stood poised to dominate the Persian Gulf, John Kerry voted against Operation Desert Storm.

And in the first debate this year, Senator Kerry said America had to meet some kind of global test before we could take military action.

The President and I know better than that. We know that it is not our job to conduct international opinion polls, our job is to defend America.

Bush Says Kerry Is Consistently Wrong on National Security

2004-10-27T22:37:00.000-05:00

George W. Bush said the following at a campaign rally in Findlay, Ohio, today.

Senator Kerry's record on national security has the far deeper problem than election-year flip-flopping. On the largest national security issues of our time, he has been consistently wrong. When Ronald Reagan was confronting the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, Senator Kerry said that President Reagan's policy of peace through strength was making America less safe. History has shown that Senator Kerry was wrong and President Ronald Reagan was right.

When former President Bush led a coalition against Saddam Hussein in 1991, Senator Kerry voted against the use of forces to liberate Kuwait. History has shown that Senator Kerry was wrong and former President Bush was right.

In 1994, just one year after the first bombing of the World Trade Center, Senator Kerry proposed massive cuts in America's intelligence budget, so massive that even his Massachusetts colleague, Ted Kennedy, opposed them. History has shown that Senator Kerry was wrong, and—we have got to be fair—that Senator Kennedy was right.

During the last 20 years, in key moments of challenge and decision for America, Senator Kerry has chosen the position of weakness and inaction. With that record, he stands in opposition not just to me, but to the great tradition of the Democratic Party. The party of Franklin Roosevelt, the party of Harry Truman, the party of John Kennedy is rightly remembered for confidence and resolve in times of war and hours of crisis. Senator Kerry has turned his back on "pay any price" and "bear any burden," and he has replaced those commitments with "wait and see," and "cut and run."

Bush Counterattacks Kerry for His Attack About Saddam's Explosives

2004-10-27T22:27:00.000-05:00

George W. Bush said the following at a campaign rally in Lititz, Pennsylvania, today:

After repeatedly calling Iraq the wrong war, and a diversion, Senator Kerry this week seemed shocked to learn that Iraq was a dangerous place, full of dangerous weapons. The Senator used to know that, even though he seems to have forgotten it over the course of the campaign. But after all, that's why we're there. Iraq was a dangerous place run by a dangerous tyrant who had a lot of weapons. We have seized or destroyed more than 400,000 tons of munitions, including explosives, at more than—thousands of different sites. And we're continuing to round up more weapons every day.

I want to remind the American people, if Senator Kerry had his way, we would still be taking our global test, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, he would control all those weapons and explosives, and could have shared them with our terrorist enemies. Now, the Senator is making wild charges about missing explosives, when his top foreign policy advisor admits—quote—"We do not know the facts." Think about that. The Senator is denigrating the action of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts.

Unfortunately, that's part of a pattern of saying almost anything to get elected, like when Senator Kerry charged that our military failed to get Osama bin Laden at Tora Bora, even though our top military commander, General Tommy Franks, said, "The Senator's understanding of events does not square with reality." And our intelligence reports placed bin Laden in any of several different countries at the time.

Our military is now investigating a number of possible scenarios, including that the explosives may have been moved before our troops even arrived at the site. This investigation is important and it's ongoing. And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander-in-Chief.

Leftists Will Get Us Killed

2004-10-27T22:20:00.000-05:00

David Horowitz writes a scathing article about how Leftists are undermining our society, leaving us weaker and easier prey for our enemies.

Canadian Police Probe Muslim Leader's Remarks as "Hate Crime"

2004-10-27T21:54:00.000-05:00

"Hate crimes" laws are unjust, because they violate the rights of free speech and freedom of conscience, and because they are usually applied selectively, depending on whether the "offense" is politically correct or incorrect. This holds even for the disgusting remarks made by Mohamed Elmasry, the president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, who said during a television discussion show last week that all adult Israelis are legitimate targets of the Arab "resistance".

Some are demanding that he resign his position. More should do so, and he and his group should be ostracized by all decent people.

His remarks, on the available information about them, were not incitements to violence, although they did condone murder and could contribute to future murders. They are therefore criminal only insofar as they fall under the ambit of "hate crimes" law. The remarkable thing about this incident however is that there is even an investigation of possible "hate crimes", given that he is a member of a politically correct group.

Leftists' October Surprise Explodes In Their Face II

2004-10-27T21:53:00.000-05:00

The United States military says today that a search of the Al Qaqaa munitions dump before the war ended found no explosives.

The New York Sun reports today that in 1995 Charles Duelfer, who was a member of the United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq, and some other inspectors issued a warning to the International Atomic Energy Agency about explosives caches in Iraq. The I.A.E.A., headed then and now by Mohamed AlBaradei, allowed Saddam Hussein and his regime to keep them, even though they were prohibited under U.N. Security Council resolutions.

NewsMax.com reports that the New York Times reported before the war that Saddam's regime was transferring high explosives.

President George W. Bush attacked John Kerry for attacking him based on the groundless story.

Leftists' October Surprise Explodes In Their Face

2004-10-26T22:30:00.000-05:00

The New York Times' report yesterday about a huge cache of high explosives in Iraq has been dicredited about as fast as C.B.S.'s fake memos were. (The Times and C.B.S. collaborated on the explosive story.) The report accused George W. Bush and his administration of having failed to secure a storage depot of explosives in Iraq, and that now the explosives are gone, presumably having been looted by the enemies of free Iraq. However, N.B.C. reported yesterday that it had a crew embedded with the first American troops who came across the dump, as they were making their way to Baghdad during the invasion of Iraq, in early 2003. The U.S. military also says that there were no explosives at the site when American troops arrived there, in early 2003.

C.B.S.'s "60 Minutes" was the first to learn of the alleged story about the explosives. C.B.S. got a tip last Wednesday, and the story was put together by Friday. It had intended to broadcast the story on October 31, but decided to have its partner in the story, the Times, report it Monday instead, because they learnt that some other reporters were on it.

Another facet of this story, as the New York Sun reports, is the curious timing of the International Atomic Energy Agency's letter about the Iraqi explosives, only one week before the presidential election. Mohamed ElBaradei's term as the chief of the I.A.E.A. is about to expire. The United States will not support an extension beyond two terms. However, Mr. ElBaradei may suppose that John Kerry, eager to please the Europeans, may approve a third term, and simultaneously exact revenge on Mr. Bush for demanding that he do his job and for exposing him as incompetent.

Bush's Coalition in World War IV, and Successes

2004-10-26T22:20:00.000-05:00

The second excerpt from Richard Miniter's new book Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror is about the coalition that George W. Bush has assembled to fight World War IV, and also about the successes he has achieved in the war. Following are the salient items.

The war on terror binds America both to its traditional "Anglo-Saxon" allies and to its old ideological foes. ... Many new alliances are also being forged. A global intelligence-sharing arrangement now incorporates more than one hundred nations. ... Nations that reside on America's dreaded "terrorist sponsors" list have also covertly come to Washington's aid. Libya, Syria, and especially Sudan have arrested, interrogated, or executed hundreds of al Qaeda members. ... President Bush has built a global alliance as unconventional as the foe arrayed against us.

...

Neither the president nor the press has managed to make the War on Terror into a comprehensible narrative. Instead, it is presented to the public as a string of shootouts and arrests, with no sense of the big picture. Why? For national security and political reasons, there are things that the president cannot tell the public. The president might be winning the war, but to tell us where and how would expose spies and allies, thereby endangering some allied efforts.

...

Mr. Bush faces a dilemma in 2004: If he reveals some of the war's surprising successes, he might gain votes but impede the war's progress, while he risks his electoral future by leaving the "shadow war" in the shadows. So far, Mr. Bush has kept his silence. That is a revealing and risky choice, putting the nation's security ahead of political gain in an election with razor-thin margins.

By and large, the press has failed to use a wide-angle lens in their war coverage; some of the biggest developments in the War on Terror have gone unnoticed. Instead, reporters have offered us shards of information, fragments about terrorists with strange names from faraway lands, or brief clips of politicians and generals. We get only headlines, sound bites, and snapshots. No record of victories, defeats, or draws. It is, as one critic wrote on another subject, "the context of no context." No big picture.

If the press had covered World War II the way they cover the War on Terror, we would have seen exhaustive coverage of the carnage of the Pearl Harbor attack but missed entirely Doolittle's raid on Tokyo, the heroic defeat on Wake Island, the desperate defense of Guadalcanal, and the come-from-behind victory in the Battle of Midway. With a press like this, at the end of 1942 America would have no idea whether World War II was a hopeless cataclysm or a purposeful march to victory.

The unreported story of the War on Terror is that we can win it, and that the victories are being won now.

Bush's Multilateral Proliferation Security Initiative Holds Exercises

2004-10-26T22:17:00.000-05:00

One of George W. Bush's many foreign policy and national security successes appears in the news today. The Japanese are hosting counter-proliferation exercises at sea, as part of the Proliferation Security Initiative. The P.S.I.'s most notable success thus far has been the interception of a shipment bound for Libya of materials and equipment for the production of weapons of mass destruction. The evidence thereby obtained was useful to convincing Moamar Gadhafi to abandon his W.M.D. program.

The Associated Press reports the following about the international nature of the P.S.I.

The 11 nations that initially backed the PSI initiative last year are Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Since then, five other countries have actively participated in the program, while 60 others have declared their willingness to support its goals.

Asked about Asian participation, [U.S. Undersecretary of State John] Bolton said Russia and Singapore had joined the initiative and that China, while not participating, supported the exercises.

Who says that Mr. Bush shuns allies?

Kerry Says His Religious Faith Requires Government Action

2004-10-25T22:51:00.001-05:00

John Kerry said Sunday that his religious faith requires him to pursue Leftist policies, which involve the use of government, including taking money from some people in order to spend it on programs that benefits others, arguing that doing so is in keeping with Matthew 25:40: "Whatever you do to the least of these, you do unto me." Yet, he he is pro-abortion, which, unlike socialism, the Catholic Church, of which Mr. Kerry says he is a member, opposes, because it is the killing of an innocent human life.

U.N. Security Council Members Deny Meeting with Kerry

2004-10-25T22:51:00.000-05:00

The Washington Times reports today that John Kerry did not meet with all the members of the United Nations Security Council, contrary to claims he made several times in the past 11 months. Following are the salient points.

U.N. ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the U.N. Security Council just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

An investigation by The Washington Times reveals that while the candidate did talk for an unspecified period to at least a few members of the panel, no such meeting, as described by Mr. Kerry on a number of occasions over the past year, ever occurred

At the second presidential debate earlier this month, Mr. Kerry said he was more attuned to international concerns on Iraq than President Bush, citing his meeting with the entire Security Council.

"This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members of the security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable," Mr. Kerry said of the Iraqi dictator.

Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the "real readiness" of the United Nations to "take this seriously" because he met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."

But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either.

...

When reached for comment last week, an official with the Kerry campaign stood by the candidate's previous claims that he had met with the entire Security Council.

But after being told late yesterday of the results of The Times investigation, the Kerry campaign issued a statement that read in part, "It was a closed meeting and a private discussion."

A Kerry aide refused to identify who participated in the meeting.

The statement did not repeat Mr. Kerry's claims of a lengthy meeting with the entire 15-member Security Council, instead saying the candidate "met with a group of representatives of countries sitting on the Security Council."

...

The revelation that Mr. Kerry never met with the entire U.N. Security Council could be problematic for the Massachusetts senator, as it clashes with one of his central foreign-policy campaign themes—honesty.

...

The Democrat has also made his own veracity a centerpiece of his campaign, calling truthfulness "the fundamental test of leadership."

Mr. Kerry closed the final debate by recounting what his mother told him from her hospital bed, "Remember: integrity, integrity, integrity."

Bin Laden In Iran?

2004-10-25T22:50:00.000-05:00

Jack Kelly writes where he believes Usama bin Laden most likely is if he is still alive: Iran, protected by the Iranian regime, along with many other Al Qaeda members, and living near a town that is, according to Global Security.org, "the locale of an underground nuclear weapons facility staffed by experts from Russia, China and North Korea."

U.N. "Oil-for-Food" Chief Presided Over Earlier U.N. Scandal

2004-10-25T22:48:00.000-05:00

The New York Post reports today that Benon Sevan, the chief of the United Nations' Oil-for-Food program—probably the biggest corruption scandal in history—presided over a similar scandal as head of a U.N. relief mission in Afghanistan in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

New Bush T.V. Ad Talks about Choices When Alone in the Voting Booth

2004-10-25T22:46:00.000-05:00

The Bush campaign rolled out a new television advertisement today that talks about the choices voters have when they are alone in the voting booth—away from the heat of the Leftist establishment press and the loud and obnoxious Leftists. Below is the script.

Voice Over:
When it’s finally quiet, here’s the choice:

President Bush and Congressional allies:
- strong leadership to protect America
- tax relief
- common sense healthcare
- strengthen and protect Social Security

John Kerry and liberal allies:
- higher taxes
- voting to tax Social Security benefits
- government-run healthcare
- a record of slashing intelligence and
- reckless defense cuts

Alone in the booth…why take the risk?

President Bush:
I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message.

Bushian Diplomacy In World War IV

2004-10-25T22:35:00.000-05:00

Richard Miniter has written a new book, Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush is Winning the War on Terror, which the Washington Times is excerpting this week. Today's excerpt contains the following diplomacy by George W. Bush.

In a series of private meetings at the White House, President Bush made it clear that he was fighting to win. Abdullah Saleh, the president of Yemen, a small, arid republic on the southwestern edge of the Arabian peninsula, met with Bush in the White House in December 2002. Almost a year and a half had passed since the September 11 attacks. Saleh hoped that Bush had softened. The Yemeni president tried to make him understand that Yemen could not risk being too helpful in the War on Terror and that invading Iraq would be a mistake. Investigative journalist Murray Weiss reported what happened next. Citing an Arab proverb, Saleh said, "If he were to put a cat in a cage, it could likely turn into a fierce lion."

Bush's response was stinging. "The cat has rabies and the only way to cure the cat is to cut off its head."

Saleh got the message.

Mr. Bush's diplomatic style is short, direct—and effective.

Jewish and Muslim Leaders Demand Canadian Islamic Congress Chief Quit

2004-10-25T22:24:00.000-05:00

The National Post reports today that several Jewish leaders and at least one Muslim leader are demanding that Mohamed Elmasry, the president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, who, last week on a television discussion program, said that all adult Israelis are legitimate targets of Arab "resistance", and whose organization issued a statement about his remarks over the weekend that is a non-denial denial, non-apologetic apology, non-contrite contrition.

The outrage over Mr. Elmasry's remarks and his and his organization's response is tepid. Jewish outrage is expected, and no less justified because it is Jewish. However, except for one lone Muslim leader, Muslims, politicians and other Canadians are silent. Where are those humane, kind and compassionate people that Canadian nationalists continually proclaim Canadians to be? Or is it all self-praising Leftist propaganda?

Bringing Liberty to Middle East vs. Government Medicine

2004-10-25T22:15:00.000-05:00

The incomparable Mark Steyn writes in his weekend article, in which he argues against John Kerry's Europhile delusions, thusly:

As for Canada, yes, under socialized health care, prescription drugs are cheaper, medical treatment's cheaper, life is cheaper. After much stonewalling, the Province of Quebec's Health Department announced this week that in the last year some 600 Quebecers had died from C. difficile, a bacterium acquired in hospital. In other words, if, say, Bill Clinton had gone for his heart bypass to the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal, he would have had the surgery, woken up the next day swimming in diarrhea and then died. It's a bacterium caused by inattention to hygiene—by unionized, unsackable cleaners who don't clean properly; by harassed overstretched hospital staff who don't bother washing their hands as often as they should. So 600 people have been killed by the filthy squalor of disease-ridden government hospitals. That's the official number. Unofficially, if you're over 65, the hospitals will save face and attribute your death at their hands to "old age" or some such and then "lose" the relevant medical records. Quebec's health system is a lot less healthy than, for example, Iraq's.

One thousand Americans are killed in 18 months in Iraq, and it's a quagmire. One thousand Quebecers are killed by insufficient hand-washing in their filthy, decrepit [state monopoly] health care system, and kindly progressive Americans can't wait to bring it south of the border. If one has to die for a cause, bringing liberty to the Middle East is a nobler venture and a better bet than government health care.

Bush Holds Stadium-Sized Rallies in Florida

2004-10-24T21:15:00.000-05:00

The Washington Times reports today that George W. Bush held four very big rallies in Florida yesterday, with the number of people in attendance (12,000, 13,000, 18,000 and 53,000) being enough to fill stadiums. At least one of the rallies—the one which attracted 53,000 supporters—was indeed held in a stadium, and many of the supporters "waited more than three hours to hear his 50-minute speech".

The size of these rallies is impressive. The people in attendance could all have been doing other things on a Saturday, but instead they chose to attend a political rally and waited hours in line and at the sites of the events to do so. It shows a very high level of commitment to Mr. Bush. That such a high number of people are doing so shows that support for Mr. Bush is strong and wide. It may also be indicative that the polls are failing to capture the actual level of support enjoyed by Mr. Bush. This level of enthusiasm and support, if it is indicative of the sentiment among people across the country, and if it manifests itself in votes for Mr. Bush, augers for a strong showing for him on November 2.

"Moderate" Muslim Leader Slurs Jews, Urges Martyrdom in Jihad

2004-10-24T20:59:00.000-05:00

The Globe and Mail today reports on a so-called "moderate" Muslim leader in Vancouver who lectured in a mosque that Jews are "the brothers of monkeys and swine" and that the prophet says "oh Muslim, oh slave of Allah, that verily behind me is a Jew. Then come and kill him." He also urged his followers to seek martydom in jihad:

For one of you to be in the front row of the Muslims ... with the mujahedeen is better than him standing in prayer for 60 years. ... That [spreading the word of Islam by fighting] is what is known as the offensive jihad. And there's a good reason for that. It is in order to establish security on this earth. It is so that the word of Allah will be the superior word. ... [It] should be all of our intention that one day we be martyrs. ... If it is not, I pray, revise yourself. Look deep into your heart because ... it is inconceivable that a true believer will not desire martyrdom.

I have no problem calling the Christians and the Jews and those who are not Muslim kuffar [non-believers] and if they die in that state they will abide in the hell-fire forever. I don't care what anyone else says.

Muslim Leader "Regrets" Pro-Terrorism Remarks "Misunderstood"

2004-10-24T19:36:00.000-05:00

The Canadian Islamic Congress yesterday issued a statement about remarks by its president, Mohamed Elmasry, during a television show earlier in the week, during which he said all Israelis are legitimate targets of Arab "resistance" (a.k.a. terrorism). The statement is a non-denial denial, non-apologetic apology, non-contrite contrition.

First, instead of Mr. Elmasry issuing a statement about his remarks, his group issued one. As the remarks were Mr. Elmasry's—whether or not he did so in his capacity as president of the group—it is he personally who should issue any statement of apology for, retraction of, or explanation about his remarks. Any statement by his group cannot speak on his behalf, only on its own. As such, it can denounce his remarks, state that they do not express or reflect its position, and that he is personally responsible for them.

Second, of the 286 words of the statement, only 17 are Mr. Elmasry's. This is pathetically little. The statement is an attempt both by the group and by him to distance themselves from the uproar caused by his, its president's, remarks, without denouncing his remarks or the views they express. Instead, it quotes him as saying, "I sincerely regret that my comments were misunderstood and, as a result, caused offense." No denial, no apology, no contrition.

The statement also includes bland remarks saying that the group considers terrorism an ineffective tool for achieving political objectives, and that terrorism is a serious threat to peace and security. Of course, if the objective is to threaten peace and security, or to kill Jews, Christians, infidels or apostates, then terrorism is an effective tool. The statement does not condemn the killing of civilians; it does not condemn the Muslim terrorists who murder civilians. It says only that the group does not condone as a legitimate military operation the killing of Israeli civilians by suicide-bombing. So, it could,for example, condone the killing of Israeli civilians as a "legitimate resistance to the occupation". The statement is a non-denial denial.

Reality vs. Denial

2004-10-24T15:09:00.000-05:00

Ralph Peters writes a devastating article today about the Europeans, George W. Bush-type Americans, and Islamism. Everybody—regardless of their position on the subject of Islamism—should read this article, and then reflect on Mr. Peters' argument and their own position. Everybody owns it to himself and to the wider discussion on this subject. And then they should tell their friends about this article.

Mr. Peters argues that the Europeans fail to realize that the terrorism from Islamists is critically different from the terrorism of the past. Whereas the terrorists of the past had explicit political goals, which the terrorists sought to effect in order that they could live in such a political situation, the Islamist terrorists have only the goal of genocide of all Westerners, non-Muslims and apostates as a sacrifice to their god, and that their own death in such an undertaking earns them a place in paradise. Islamists' goals make their terrorism an existential threat, which the terrorism of the past never was.

He then writes that Europeans are in greater danger from the Islamist threat than Americans. The United States has become a harder target—because of defensive measures it has undertaken and because it is capable and willing to act decisively against threats—making attacks in Europe much likelier because it is a soft target, because of its proximity to the Muslim lands, because of the large numbers of unassimilated, resentful Muslims in their midst, and because of Europeans' fecklessness in the face of immorality and intimidation.

Europeans are in denial. Comfortable in their cozy welfare-state world, protected for decades by Americans, they are both unused to dealing with uncomfortable realities, and wish that reality would leave them alone. They resent Americans for acknowledging reality.

Whether Europeans (and others of a similar mindset) acknowledge the reality of the Islamist threat before or after suffering a calamity is their choice, but the threat is not the United States, and was not created or caused by Americans. Americans did however acknowledge it before others , warned others about it, and tried to organize to defeat it.

Again, read this article.

Democrats' "Eagle" Ad Hurts Kerry and Democrats

2004-10-23T19:29:00.000-05:00

The Democratic National Committee produced an advertisement, named "Eagle", featuring an eagle and an ostrich, comparing the two. This was in response to the George W. Bush's television advertisement, named "Wolves", featuring a pack of wolves.

The Democrats' advertisement is disastrous. It is limited to referring to the two animals, the good qualities of the eagle and the bad qualities of the ostrich, and saying that the good qualities are desirable; there is no mention of any person or political group. The Democrats mean the eagle to represent John Kerry, and the ostrich, Mr. Bush. However, because it fails to ascribe to anybody the good and bad qualities it mentions, or to either of the animals, many people will understand the eagle to represent Mr. Bush, and the ostrich, Mr. Kerry. Thus, the advertisement will be ineffective with Republicans and Mr. Bush's supporters, but it may be effective, in an undesirable way for the Democrats, with some of Mr. Kerry's supporters, who decide that he is the ostrich, and Mr. Bush, the eagle, and change their support. It will have no effect on undecided voters, whose defining attribute is that they are indecisive.

Mr. Bush's advertisement, in contrast to the Democrats' advertisement, is powerful and effective. It uses the animals as a metaphor for the dangers that threaten Americans, and the imagery of woods and predators as a metaphor for the fact that the world is dangerous. The text is concrete, refers to specific persons (Mr. Kerry) and political groups (liberals in Congress) , and is tied to the imagery. Indeed, the text is perfectly concrete, without any phrase or even any word being anything but concrete. The advertisement will be effective with Republicans and Mr. Bush's supporters, will not hurt Mr. Bush, and may erode support for Mr. Kerry. It may even win Mr. Bush the support of some previously undecided voters.

The absence of the word "television" in describing the Democrats' advertisement at the beginning of this article, as is its presence in describing the G.O.P.'s advertisement, is intentional and purposeful, for it conveys the fact that the Democrats' advertisement has not appeared on television and there has been no advertising time bought for it, unlike the G.O.P.'s advertisement, which is airing on television.

With the advertisement being desirably effective only with highly committed supporters of Mr. Kerry, and with its definite and serious potential for losing Mr. Kerry supporters, not to mention the expense of buying advertising time, it is clear why the Democrats have chosen not to put it on television, and posted it on their website only. There, their committed supporters can view it and relish in their sense of superiority. It is partisan political pornography for them. However, the Democrats did not produce it for such a reason.

The Democrats produced their advertisement in order to have the press discuss and present the advertisement in a way that is much more concrete than the advertisement is itself. In such a way, they get the benefit of having their view presented by the press alongside any presentation of Mr. Bush's advertisement, but without having had to produce and pay for the televised airing of an actual advertisement that presents their views concretely. This saves them money. But it also saves them from the impossible task of producing an advertisement that presents their views concretely, which requires much more time and much more explanation than is possible in a 15-second or 30-second advertisement.

Following are the scripts (available at "Wolves" and "Eagle", respectively) for the two advertisements:

"Wolves "

Voice Over:
In an increasingly dangerous world...
Even after the first terrorist attack on America...
John Kerry and the liberals in Congress voted to slash America’s intelligence operations.
By 6 billion dollars...
Cuts so deep they would have weakened America’s defenses.
And weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm.

President Bush:
I’m George W. Bush and I approve this message.

"Eagle"

Voice Over:
The eagle soars high above the earth.
The ostrich buries its head in the sand.
The eagle can see everything for miles around.
The ostrich? Can't see at all.
The eagle knows when it's time to change course.
The ostrich stands in one place.
Given the choice, in these challenging times, shouldn't we be the eagle again?

The Democratic National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

Senior Leader of Zarqawi's Terrorist Network Arrested in Iraq

2004-10-23T18:48:00.000-05:00

The U.S. military reported today that a senior leader of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's terrorist network was arrested in Iraq, in southern Fallujah, early Saturday morning, along with five other terrorists. The military also reports that he was first thought to be a minor member of the network but that:

... due to a surge in the number of al-Zarqawi associates who have been captured or killed by strikes and other operations [by the forces of free Iraq and its friends], the member had moved up to take a critical position as an al-Zarqawi senior leader.

This is good news, if it is an accurate assessment of the situation. It means that the network now lacks leadership capable of organizing, coordinating and formulating strategy. It is equivalent to placing line workers in the top executive positions of a business. Or, to use a pop culture example, it is the equivalent of allowing Homer Simpson to design a new model of car and bet the entire company on the result. The result will be chaos and the eventual destruction of the network.

All Israelis Are Legitimate Targets, Canadian Muslim Leader Says

2004-10-23T16:59:00.000-05:00

The president of the Canadian Islamic Congress said during a television appearance on Tuesday of this week that all Israelis are legitimate targets of Arab "resistance". The host, surprised by the statement, sought clarification several times, but Mohamed Elmasry maintained his position. The Canadian Jewish Congress and several Canadian Muslim groups have condemned Mr. Elmasry's views. No politician is noted as having condemned Mr. Elmasry and his views.

Of course, there have been no accusations of "hate crimes", even though such charges are often made when the target of the offender is not Jewish and the offender is not Muslim. It is another example that exposes the political nature of "hate crimes" law, a travesty of justice that tramples the rights of free speech and freedom of conscience.

Bush Is Committed to Containing Nukes

2004-10-23T15:15:00.000-05:00

Senator Richard Lugar writes a devastating article in today's Washington Post. John Kerry has frequently invoked him as part of his attack on George W. Bush, accusing the president of failing to do enough to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union and of even scaling back the extant programs for such purpose, one which was the work of Mr. Lugar. He writes:

[T]he Kerry campaign has accused the Bush administration of giving Nunn-Lugar and other nonproliferation issues low priority. This charge is not true. The Bush administration's record on securing weapons of mass destruction has been one of innovation and activism. Its record on securing dangerous weapons and materials is a rare case in U.S. politics where the performance of a candidate far exceeds his rhetoric on the issue. The president's campaign has reason to tout his multilateral accomplishments in this area. The Bush campaign has successfully communicated its core national security message: that the president is best equipped to carry out a comprehensive war on terrorism. It must now emphasize its substantial diplomatic achievements in the field of nonproliferation.

He then lists and describes Mr. Bush's work and achievements in the field of nonproliferation. Then, he concludes:

President Bush has repeatedly demonstrated his personal commitment to Nunn-Lugar and has been out in the world achieving nonproliferation goals. The administration has established relationships and expertise that are critical to the paramount objective of preventing weapons of mass destruction from falling into terrorist hands. The Bush administration will not have to start from scratch in 2005.

Mr. Lugar is one of the "realist" Republicans whom the establishment press and Democrats cite to show that Mr. Bush and his administration are radical ideologues who have hijacked the Republican party. Yet, here, Mr. Lugar praises Mr. Bush for achievements that are subtantially better than Mr. Lugar's and which do much towards advance the objective of nonproliferation.

This is the second time this week that one of Mr. Kerry's attacks on Mr. Bush has been exposed as baseless by the person most familiar with the subject in question. Earlier this week, Tommy Franks exposed Mr. Kerry's charges about Tora Bora and Iraq as baseless. Now, Mr. Lugar does the same about Mr. Kerry's charges about nonproliferation.

Annan Bars U.N. from Assisting Iraqis with War Crimes Trials

2004-10-23T14:25:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post reports that Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, has barred the organizations' personnel from assisting Iraqi lawyers and prosecutors with war crimes trials, because, as its spokesman said Friday:

The United Nations noted that serious doubts exist regarding the capability of the Iraqi special tribunal to meet relevant international standards. ... [And also, Mr. Annan maintains that] U.N. officials should not be directly involved in lending assistance to any court or tribunal that is empowered to impose the death penalty.

This is rich. What are the "relevant international standards" Mr. Annan invokes? Are they those practiced by the U.N., which has covered up all sorts of illegalities and crimes by its personnel, which was a participant in the largest corruption, bribery and influence-peddling scheme in history, which ignores clear language in its own resolutions, and which fails to uphold its own resolutions? Mr. Annan's position is like the pot calling the kettle black, or the whore accusing the viewer of pornography of immorality.

Furthermore, Mr. Annan had no qualms with Saddam Hussein's and his regime's practice of imposing the death penalty, capriciously, indiscriminately, en masse, cruelly, without trial, and without proportionality to the alleged crime—yet he now has the greatest qualms with free Iraqis' use of the death penalty. Iraqis now have a system of courts, and will conduct open trials, in which the defendant has a real right to present a defense. The death penalty may be applied to those committed of heinous crimes. Mr. Annan not only disregards the atrocities committed by tyrants, not only condemns free societies—especially ones that have emerged from decades of totalist tyrannical rule—of practices that are imperfect, but also seeks to impose his view of just and proper punishment on societies. This is especially rich given that he often (unjustifiably) condemns the best societies of seeking to impose their views on the worst.

Bush Signs Overhaul of Corporate Tax Law

2004-10-23T12:46:00.000-05:00

George W. Bush signed into law a bill that reforms the U.S. corporate tax code. It began as a reform to phase out a corporate tax break for exporters that the World Trade Organization ruled was a prohibited subsidy under the W.T.O. The European Union had brought the matter before the W.T.O. and subsequent to the ruling imposed permitted retaliatory tariffs against various American goods.

The reform bill was originally intended to phase out the tax break and to provide a W.T.O.-permitted substitute. Legislators however expanded the bill to include many more changes to the corporate tax code, mostly tax breaks to specific industries or for specific goods. The net result is a reduction in corporate taxes but at the expense of increased discrimination, which is equivalent to a subsidy, and complexity, beyond what existed before the reform and what was the original intention of the reform.

The resulting reform bill is a typical political product designed to assuage or benefit specific interests and constituencies at the expense of a simpler product that applies to all corporations equally. There was an understandable argument for this in the original reform plan, which intended to reform the prohibited practice in a way that would make it permissible without reducing or substantially altering its benefits and beneficiaries. Everything other than this is an unnecessary mess, without merit and a travesty of justice and sound economics.

Kerry Would Sacrifice Israel to Curry Favor of "Allies"

2004-10-22T22:54:00.000-05:00

Charles Krauthammer writes today about what John Kerry's foreign policy would mean for the State of Israel and Israelis if he becomes president. He argues, convincingly, that Mr. Kerry would abandon the policy introduced by George W. Bush. Mr. Bush's policy (which is proving to be successful) is to support Israelis' right to self-defense and to refuse to deal with the Arabs of the disputed territories until they are represented by a leader who is not a terrorist and who wishes to live in peace with Israelis. Mr. Kerry would instead return to Bill Clinton's policy (which proved to be deadly for Israelis and successful for Arab terrorists and gangsters), of dealing with the terrorist leader of the Arabs, Yasser Arafat, and of pressuring Israelis into making concrete concessions to the Arabs without demanding any reciprocal concrete concessions from them. Mr. Kerry would do this both because it is the standard Leftist policy, and to curry favor with those European governments the approval of which he considers critical to U.S. foreign policy. The change would have the effect of throwing Israelis and the State of Israel to the wolves.

List of Companies that Did Business with Saddam Under "Oil-for-Food"

2004-10-22T22:43:00.000-05:00

The United Nations' committee investigating the "Oil-for-Food" scam released a 300-page document Thursday listing the companies that did business with Saddam Hussein and his regime, the Washington Times reports today. The list shows that 3,545 firms sold goods to Saddam's regime, and 248 firms received Iraqi oil. Fox News reports today that the head of the congressional investigation into the scam sent a letter to the government of the state of France wanting an answer to charges of bribery relating to the scam.

Probe of "Oil-for-Food" Scam Hurts U.N.'s Credibility, Annan Says

2004-10-22T22:17:00.000-05:00

The New York Post reports that Kofi Annan had the following to say about the various investigations into the United Nations' "Oil-for-Food" scam:

There is no doubt that the constant campaign has and the discussions have hurt the U.N. That is not something we would like. It has done damage, yes.

This follows his remarks that the big deals between Saddam Hussein's regime and numerous French and Russian firms and individuals, many with close ties to the respective governments, had no corrupting effect.

From Mr. Annan's remarks it is clear that he is more concerned about the harm to his precious U.N. and its image, than to the corruption, bribery, insider dealing, and succor provided to an evil regime, all of which the U.N. facilitated, concealed, profited from, and participated in. And yet he has the gall to condemn the United States and George W. Bush for failing to get the approval of these compromised profiteers, for action against Saddam and his regime, an action which threatened both to expose them and to shut off the flow of easy but filthy lucre.

Israelis Kill Hamas' Master Bombmaker, Goon Aptly Named Ghoul

2004-10-22T21:58:00.000-05:00

The New York Post reports today that the Isrealis a few days ago killed a top Hamas goon, who was the terrorist group's master bombmaker and rocketmaker, a man aptly named Ghoul. There have been, are and will be (alas) many evil people, some of whose names become synonymous with evil, such as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Saddam. Few, however, grow into the evil that is alluded to by their name. This is the only example known to me.

Kerry On National Security

2004-10-21T10:45:00.000-05:00

John Kerry gave a speech on national security yesterday in which he made many ridiculous assertions. Below are some of them.

America is fighting ... and must win ... two wars. The war in Iraq. And the war on terror.

President Bush likes to confuse the two. He claims that Iraq is the centerpiece of the war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy: Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network.

But now that we're fighting two wars, we must ... and we will ... prevail in both. In Iraq, because the President's miscalculations have created a terrorist haven that wasn't there before. And in the worldwide struggle against the terrorists, because they attacked us ... and because they represent the greatest threat to security in our time.

...

... [T]he failure left a power vacuum filled by Saddam loyalists ... Shi'a extremists ... and international terrorists, who were not in Iraq before the war, but have found a haven there now.

Mr. Kerry ignores the fact that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was a terrorist haven. Deroy Murdock has, in addition to many articles he has written (some of which are available at National Review Online), just recently put up a website that documents Saddam's ties to and support of terrorists. Stephen Hayes, who has written and book and several articles (see the Weekly Standard website) about Saddam's connections with Al Qaeda, wrote yesterday about the ignorant remarks (which are shared by Mr. Kerry) by Mr. Kerry's senior foreign policy advisor about Abu Musab al Zarqawi's connections with Saddam and Al Qaeda.

The difference (which Infinite Perpetuality wrote about previously) between Saddam's Iraq and free Iraq regarding terrorists is that under Saddam it was a haven for terrorists whereas now it is a lure for them, drawing them out from wherever they were before, so that they are easier to kill.

Mr. Kerry describes free Iraq as a terrorist haven (which is false, as explained earlier), yet fails to realize that with terrorists in Iraq and with terrorists going to Iraq, that Iraq is a central theater in World War IV and that killing the terrorists is easier than it would be otherwise. He describes Iraq as a diversion from U.S. efforts to defeat Islamists, but Iraq, by luring Islamists, is diverting them from attacking elsewhere and puts them into a killing box.

[C]haos in Iraq is as bad for our allies and Iraq's neighbors as it is for us. It's in their self-interest to prevent Iraq from becoming a permanent terrorist haven in the heart of the Middle East.

Mr. Kerry fails to understand that the countries neighboring Iraq are almost all controlled by regimes that support terrorism and Islamism, and that have no interest in a free Iraq. Indeed, they are supporting the assassins, saboteurs and terrorists in Iraq. It it foolish for Mr. Kerry to expect any help from them.

We will ... cut through the red tape. .... We will stop paying companies under investigation for fraud and corruption. ...

...

... [W]e must take urgent, essential steps to guarantee promised elections can be held next year, including supporting the U.N. elections mission in Iraq.

...

... [T]he U.N. says the elections are in grave doubt because of the deteriorating security situation. There are only five U.N. election experts on the ground in Iraq. We need hundreds more. ...

...

We will recruit troops from other nations for a U.N. protection force.

...

... President Bush let Vice President Cheney talk him out of giving the U.N. the role in Iraq these countries [the governments of which said they would consider contributing troops to Iraq for peacekeeping operations] said they needed to get involved.

Mr. Kerry says he "will stop paying companies under investigation for fraud and corruption", presumably because it is distasteful to do business with organizations that engage or are even suspected of engaging in fraud or corruption. Yet, he then proceeds to invoke the United Nations more than five times, each time in a positive light. The U.N. is rotten to the core with fraud and corruption, the most prominent instance of both being the Oil-for-Food program, which Saddam exploited to enrich himself and his cronies, bribe and influence prominent members and persons of the U.N., including three permanent members of the U.N. Security Council.

... [W]e will fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction program.

Mr. Kerry, by condemning the Department of Defense for all that is bad in Iraq, thereby takes the side of the Department of State. However, Defense's plans were thwarted because State's advice was heeded, and it is because Defense was prevented from implementing its plans that the situation in Iraq is not better than it is (which is not as bad as the establishment press and the Left—pardon any redundancy—makes it seem).

As President, I will treat our allies with respect. I will encourage them to help develop Iraq's resources and to bid on contracts. ...

Mr. Kerry has referred to the Coalition of the Willing as the "coalition of the coerced and the bribed", the allies participating in it as "window dressing". He thereby treats U.S. allies with disrespect. Perhaps, his way of being respectful is to reward them with oil and reconstruction contracts in Iraq. None of this would be bribery, and none of this would be an exploitation of Iraqis' property.

The President diverted our forces and focus from Afghanistan to Iraq. When Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, the President should have sent U.S. forces—not Afghan warlords—to surround the caves, and he should have used America's best mountain troops and technology to hunt down, kill and capture the terrorists.

Tommy Franks earlier this week wrote an article in the New York Times directly refuting Mr. Kerry's claims about Tora Bora.

[This administration] even waited until last week to turn off the financial pipeline to the terrorist the President so fervently denounces, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

On this point, Mr. Kerry is correct. It is astounding that the Bush administration did not treat Zarqawi's group as a terrorist organization earlier. However, Mr. Kerry had nothing to say about the matter before, either.

Even as we stay on the offensive against the terrorists, we've got to strengthen our defense.

For example, 95 percent of the containers coming into our ports are not screened today. I will change that.

Today, your luggage is x-rayed when it goes on the plane, but the cargo in the hold underneath is almost never checked. I will change that.

More than 2 million rail cars and 500 train stations are used by commuters everyday. Yet, the Department of Homeland Security still has no strategy to defend them—even after the terrorist attacks in Madrid. I will change that.

Half our fire-fighters don't have the radios they need to communicate in a crisis. I will change that.

More than 100 chemical plants in the United States are located in communities of one million or more people. The President caved to pressure from his big donors and dropped new plant security regulations. I will change that.

...

My plan will screen more shipping containers and more air cargo for explosives ... invest in rail and subway security... defend our chemical and nuclear plants ... increase border security... and give our first responders the equipment and personnel they need to protect America.

Mr. Kerry denounces the level of security checks and say he will change it, but fails to quantify his goals, opting instead merely for "more".

I will launch a new era of public diplomacy to explain our policies to the world ... and to combat lies and distortions about America.

This is rich. Mr. Kerry is not the worst example of anti-Americanism or blame-America-firstism, but he, Democrats collectively, and the Left are engaged in campaign of slander, smear, distortion, misinformation, disinformation, manipulation, fraud, falsehood, lies, hate, and anger directed against the United States and Americans. The man has gall.

Mr. Kerry is wrong about the World War IV, wrong about the world and wrong about Americans' allies. Mr. Kerry is wrong for America.

Australian Opposition Party in Turmoil After Election Defeat

2004-10-20T22:53:00.000-05:00

The Labour Party of Australia is in turmoil with the sixth resignation of a frontbencher in as many days, 11 days after being routed by the ruling Liberal Party (which is actually a conservative party) and its leader, John Howard, the Daily Telegraph reports.

Mr. Howard, who has been a member of the Coalition of the Willing from its beginning, was attacked for joining in the effort to neutralize Saddam Hussein and his regime, an effort led by George W. Bush. The Labourites pledged to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq by the end of the year, if they won the election. Polls and pundits were predicting a close contest, with the Labourites having a slight advantage. Instead, the Liberals not only defeated the Labourites handily, but also increased their majority and won control of the Senate, for the first time in more than 20 years.

Howard Says He Wants Bush to Win

2004-10-20T22:34:00.000-05:00

John Howard, the prime minister of the government of the state of Australia, one of the original members of the Coalition of the Willing, and who led his party to a strong re-election win less than two weeks ago, where his party increased its majority and routed the anti-Iraq War, anti-American opposition Labor Party, said the following in recent days:

I wish him [Bush] well and I hope he gets re-elected. ... I certainly think that George Bush has given great leadership to the world in the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Howard has been a stalwart ally of the United States. It is disgraceful and reprehensible that John Kerry denigrates him and Australians, as well as all the other allies in the Coalition.

Saddam and Terrorism

2004-10-20T22:23:00.000-05:00

Deroy Murdock has put up a website documenting Saddam Hussein's extensive ties with and support of terrorists, including the 19 hijackers guilty of the September 11 massacres, and Al Qaeda operatives. The website provides the sources and the Internet addresses, where documentation is available online. He introduces the website here.

Video Shows Edwards Doing His Hair

2004-10-20T00:05:00.000-05:00

A video of John Edwards doing his hair in preparation for some appearance was posted on Slate.com today. The footage is several minutes in length. It is very unflattering to Mr. Edwards, who comes across as a prissy narcissist.

This footage compares poorly with the reasons George W. Bush gives at campaign events for having Dick Cheney as his vice presidential running mate. Ever since John Kerry chose Mr. Edwards as his vice presidential running mate, Mr. Bush has used the following remarks in his stump speech :

I readily concede he [Dick Cheney] does not have the waviest hair in the race. I did not pick him for his hairdo. I picked him because of his experience and sound judgment.

This footage can be used to produce a powerful video advertisement that would be effective even though vice presidential candidates now usually have only a marginal effect on the electoral appeal of the ticket. Such an advertisement may be too expensive, too diversionary and too unsuitable for television, but it is perfect for the Internet. I hope somebody atthe Bush-Cheney team, the Republican National Committee, or some enterprising group or individual is working on this. Obtaining the rights to use the footage, however, may be a sticking point.

Ad Shows Bush Comforting Girl Whose Mom Was Murdered on 9/11

2004-10-19T22:31:00.000-05:00

A new television advertisement which began airing today shows how George W. Bush, during a campaign rally in Ohio in May of this year, comforted a girl whose mother was murdered in the World Trade Center on September 11. The Cincinnatt Enquirer reported the moment as follows.

Lynn Faulkner, his daughter, Ashley, and their neighbor, Linda Prince, eagerly waited to shake the president's hand Tuesday at the Golden Lamb Inn. He worked the line at a steady campaign pace, smiling, nodding and signing autographs until Prince spoke:

"This girl lost her mom in the World Trade Center on 9-11."

Bush stopped and turned back.

"He changed from being the leader of the free world to being a father, a husband and a man," Faulkner said. "He looked right at her and said, 'How are you doing?' He reached out with his hand and pulled her into his chest."

Faulkner snapped one frame with his camera. [Ed. - The photo appears with the article.]

"I could hear her say, 'I'm OK,' " he said. "That's more emotion than she has shown in 21/2 years. Then he said, 'I can see you have a father who loves you very much.' "

"And I said, 'I do, Mr. President, but I miss her mother every day.' It was a special moment."

...

"The way he was holding me, with my head against his chest, it felt like he was trying to protect me," Ashley said. "I thought, 'Here is the most powerful guy in the world, and he wants to make sure I'm safe.' I definitely had a couple of tears in my eyes, which is pretty unusual for me."

...

"I'm a pretty cynical and jaded guy at this point in my life," Faulkner said of the moment with the president. "But this was the real deal. I was really impressed. It was genuine and from the heart."

General Franks Sets Kerry Straight About World War IV

2004-10-19T22:05:00.000-05:00

Tommy Franks, the general, now retired, who commanded the U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, has an article in today's New York Times in which he presents the facts about those two operations and about World War IV, countering John Kerry's absurd depictions of them. He writes:

...[T]he debate [about World War IV] should focus on facts, not distortions of history.

...

... We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. ...

... We did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a mountainous, geographically difficult region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. ...

... Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes. Pakistani troops also provided significant help. ...

... President Bush never "took his eye off the ball" when it came to Osama bin Laden. The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Both are part of the same effort to capture and kill terrorists before they are able to strike America again, potentially with weapons of mass destruction.... [T]he United States, in coordination with dozens of allies, is waging this war on many fronts.

... Neither attention nor manpower was diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. When we started Operation Iraqi Freedom we had about 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, and by the time we finished major combat operations in Iraq last May we had more than 10,000 troops in Afghanistan.

We are committed to winning this war on all fronts, and we are making impressive gains....

... [T]he gravest danger would result from the withdrawal of American troops before we finish our work.... The war against terrorism is the right war at the right time for the right reasons. And Iraq is one of the places that war must be fought and won. George W. Bush has his eye on that ball and Senator John Kerry does not.

Bush Speaks about Terrorist Threat and His Commitment to Fight It

2004-10-18T23:58:00.000-05:00

George W. Bush went to New Jersey on Monday to deliver a very powerful speech on World War IV. The speech described the threat to the civilized world from Islamism, explained what is required to defeat the enemy, explained that the approach before September 11 to terrorism and the regimes which support terrorists was mistaken then and foolish now, explained that John Kerry still has a pre-September 11 mindest and has a 20-year career of opposing the United States on matters of defense, and explained Mr. Bush's commitment and determination to do fight Islamism. The speech is so good, in its entirety, that it is difficult to extract excerpts from it. Follow the link and read the whole speech. (I wish I had seen this instead of only reading it; Mr. Bush is superb at delivering substantive speeches, which this one definitely is.)

Note, also, that Mr. Bush delivered the speech in New Jersey, a Democrat stronghold. He spent a day there during the last 15 days before the election. This is either a foolish waste of time (such as his spending time campaigning in California in the 2000 election) or indicative of Mr. Kerry's weakness in the state (which is indicated by many polls over many months).

Once again, following the link above, or go directly to either the White House website or the Bush-Cheney '04 website and read this speech!

New Bush Ad Talks about "Risk" of Kerry on Matters of Defense

2004-10-18T23:30:00.000-05:00

The Bush campaign has a new television advertisement that talks about the risk of John Kerry and his liberal allies on matters of defense. It is powerful, showing Mr. Kerry's history of weakness and opposition to defense. Below is the script.

Voice Over:
After September 11th, our world changed.
Either we fight terrorists abroad or face them here.
John Kerry and liberals in Congress have a different view.
They opposed Reagan as he won the Cold War.
Voted against the first Gulf War.
Voted to slash intelligence after the first Trade Center attack.
Repeatedly opposed weapons vital to winning the War on Terror.
John Kerry and his liberal allies... Are they a risk we can afford to take today?

President Bush:
I'm George W. Bush and I approve this message.

Canadian "Conservative" Leader Says Canada Must Meet Global Test

2004-10-18T23:15:00.001-05:00

Stephen Harper, the leader of the Conservative party of Canada, said the following recently:

...I think the government is obliged when it signs an international treaty to be able to demonstrate to other countries and to Canadians that it has the consent of the legislature for what it's doing, particularly of its own members.

His remark is very similar to John Kerry's Global Test remark:

But if and when you do it [exercise the right of preemption],... you've got to do in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test, where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Mr. Kerry is a Leftist, yet in Canada the same Leftist mentality as he has is espoused by the leader of the most right-most major political party, a party which is named "Conservative" and which is described by the country's establishment press and political class as being extreme right-wing. How despressing.

What Bush Believes

2004-10-18T23:15:00.000-05:00

Paul Kengor writes in today's New York Times about George W. Bush's faith, his foreign policy, and how the two relate. He explains that Mr. Bush shares the same vision as did the Founding Fathers and most of the most consequential presidents since. Indeed, it is those who decry and scoff at Mr. Bush's vision who are the ones who have abandoned or rejected the vision that is the foundation of America. As Mr. Kengor explains:

The influence of President Bush's faith on his foreign policy has been greatly exaggerated by both friends and foes....

...[W]hile Mr. Bush has given a number of reasons for invading Iraq—from its past and potential use of weapons of mass destruction to its suspected stockpiles of such weapons to its sponsorship and harboring of terrorists—a belief that the Almighty told him to send in the marines was not among them....

The fact is that George W. Bush's foreign policy was defined by Sept. 11, not by his faith.... And though Mr. Bush surely wanted Saddam Hussein gone before then, it was Sept. 11 that provided his sense of urgency and, as the president has put it many times, "changed everything."

...

Mr. Bush believes that God has implanted a desire for freedom in all human hearts....
...

...Mr. Bush's thinking is not that different from the system of belief embraced by the founders—particularly the notion that all human beings are "endowed by their Creator" with certain unalienable rights, one of which is liberty. Jefferson and John Locke subscribed to that, as did Republicans like Lincoln and Reagan and Democrats like Woodrow Wilson and John F. Kennedy. So have liberal and conservative thinkers and leaders over generations.

...[O]ne might counter that Mr. Bush's principle seems not to apply to the Middle Eastern Arab nations, none of which have produced an enviable democracy. In other words, he is fighting experience and history. This... is a justifiable criticism, but one that George W. Bush adamantly rejects.

...[T]he larger Bush vision for the Middle East is not merely influenced by his faith-based conviction that God wants all people to be free. A key added motivation is a theory popular in the academic field of international relations in the 1990's: the concept of a "democratic peace." This theory holds that democracies tend not to fight one another. Consequently, to the extent that the hostile Middle East becomes more democratic, the region may become more peaceful. Mr. Bush hopes to sow the seeds of such a long-term peace in Afghanistan and Iraq....

...Mr. Bush's faith influences his foreign policy, but not in the ways we commonly think....It is crucial, however, that we make distinctions between what George W. Bush really believes and what we think he believes.

The Difference Between Laws, Rules and Edicts

2004-10-18T22:28:00.000-05:00

Tibor Machan writes in today's Mises Institute daily article about the differences between laws, rules and edicts. He explains that not every "law" that a government enacts is a genuine law, or a law in the classical sense, but is instead most often either a rule usurped or imposed by a government, or an edict. As he explains:

...[O]nly laws that can be applied uniformly and universally in society are the very few that aim to keep us free. Other so called laws are really just edicts from rulers, not bona fide laws, since they apply selectively, not equally to us all.

...

...Only those qualify as bona fide laws that apply universally, to all humans, not just to some based on certain peculiarities of the law maker(s) or those intended to be ruled by the edict(s).

But there are very few laws that really apply to us all—they are the ones mainly concerned with protecting our basic rights. The rule of law is then evident where very few such laws are upheld, where government is, therefore, limited to upholding them. That is what connects the rule of law so closely with the free society.

For example, no one ought to murder, rob, kidnap, or assault another person.... They are, to use Kant’s terminology, categorically true for guiding human interaction, anytime, anywhere. However, that seatbelts ought to be worn is not universally true....Or again, that 40% of one’s earnings ought to be paid to the legal authorities....

So, when such edicts are made into laws,... they fail to amount to bona fide laws. They are bogus laws and will be widely resisted by those who realize this.... These edicts will, thus, violate the principle of the rule of law.

Moreover, many, or most, of the "laws" we follow day to day are not enforced by government at all so making similar ones a province of government is really quite pointless.... [They] are not even laws proper but rules that any manager of private realms would set down....

Many of the governmental edicts, in any case, are pseudo laws, rules that are annoying mainly because government has accrued to itself the sole, monopolistic authority to impose them on us....

Of course many perfectly good "laws"—actually rules—do not come from government[,] ... [and] are not really laws but rules.... The only reason government is involved is that it has usurped its role by taking over these spheres in a rightly ordered universe.

As a result of the proliferation of pseudo laws, all bonafide laws... tend to lose their credibility. When the legal order treats drug or alcohol prohibition, or affirmative action mandates, along the same lines it treats the prohibition against murder and rape—when it equivocates between these two categories of edicts by calling both of them laws—it is natural for people to begin to see them both as merely conventional, just something those in power happen to wish to prohibit or mandate, not as something that ought to be obeyed.

One virtue of the classical liberal, libertarian idea of law is that it preserves the coherent, even reverent meaning of the concept "law" and does not water it down, thereby weakening its reputation and undermining its binding force.

Arab Official in Disputed Territories Warns Against Israelis' Gaza Pullout

2004-10-18T22:05:00.000-05:00

The Washington Times reports today that a top Arab official in the disputed territories warns of the danger of increased violence from the Arab population in the territory following the Israelis' planned withdrawl from the Gaza Strip.

This is outrageous and absurd. The Arabs both want Israelis to withdraw from the disputed territories, and, simultaneously, they want them to stay. They say both that the Israeli presence is the cause of Arab anti-Israeli terrorism, and also that Israeli withdrawal will result in more Arab anti-Israeli terrorism. They say both that the Israeli presence is the cause of the violence and conflict, and also that Israeli withdrawal will result in further violence and conflict.

The truth is that no matter what Israelis do, the Arabs blame them for Arab anti-Israeli terrorism. This is irrational and psychotic—except if the complaint that the Arabs have about Israelis is that they exist (which itself, as manifested amongst the Arabs, is obsessive and psychotic). Of course, this is precisely the Arabs' complaint about Israelis, and it is the extinction of Israelis that motivates them and is the basis for all their actions.

What to Do to Win World War IV, the War Against Islamism

2004-10-18T21:49:00.000-05:00

Frank Gaffney writes a short article in the Middle East Forum on the:

[F]ive essential principles the U.S. must follow if it wishes to win this "War on Islamism" and severely curtail and eventually eliminate the threat of Islamic terror. [They are as follows.]

Define U.S. enemies

Define U.S. friends

Taking the war to the terrorists

Improved homeland security

Economic offensive against Islamists

Much of this, with the exception of the last item, has been said before, by many people, but this article is a short, condensed version, that is useful to help remain focused on the danger and the enemy, and the actions necessary to defeat it.

Yanks, Preparing for Fallujah, Ask Brits to Shift Troops to Baghdad

2004-10-18T21:26:00.000-05:00

The Washington Times reports today that American commanders in Iraq have asked their British counterparts to shift some of their troops from southern Iraq to positions near Baghdad, in order to free American troops for an assault on Fallujah and the enemies of free Iraq (i.e., Islamists/Baathists/terrorists) in the city. It also reports the following about the prelude to the assault:

U.S. forces continued to hammer Fallujah yesterday with missile and tank fire, as they have done since city leaders late last week turned down a demand from Prime Minister Iyad Allawi that they turn over terror mastermind Abu Musab Zarqawi.

Witnesses reported heavy fighting between U.S. and rebel forces on the eastern and southern edges of the city with clashes blocking the main road to Baghdad, 40 miles to the east.

Inside Fallujah, hundreds of rebels armed with rocket-propelled grenade launchers, machine guns and assault rifles have taken up position along the main street awaiting the attack, an Iraqi reporter told The Washington Times.

Fighters are also stationed on the rooftops, and Abdullah Janabi, a leader of the rebel Islamic Council that controls the city, warned that any "invaders and infidels" would face imminent death, said reporter Aqil Jabbar.

From the report, it is clear that the enemies of free Iraq are preparing for what they know will be a showdown for Iraq between the Forces of Free Iraq and themselves, the Forces of Evil.

Our enemies understand the stakes involved, in Fallujah and in Iraq, and how they relate to World War IV. George W. Bush, too, understands the stakes involved, as do our allies in Iraq. Yet, some do not, such as John Kerry, the Democrat party collectively, and the "allies" Mr. Kerry holds in such high regard.

Wiretaps Find Madrid Attacks Were Timed to Influence Election

2004-10-17T22:07:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post reports on new evidence from wiretaps that blosters the theory that the terrorist attacks in March in Madrid were timed to influence the Spanish election so that Jose Maria Aznar, the incumbent prime minister, who had sent Spanish troops to Iraq, would be defeated.

Saddam Bankrolled Arab Anti-Israeli Terrorists, Using Oil-for-Food

2004-10-17T22:01:00.000-05:00

The New York Post reports today on a new report that finds that Saddam Hussein bankrolled the Arab anti-Israeli terrorist group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine with $72 million worth of oil vouchers, routed through a Syrian business front, from the United Nations' Oil-for-Food program.

Zarqawi's Group Vows Allegiance to Al Qaeda

2004-10-17T21:45:00.000-05:00

As though to prove that Herbert London is correct in his article on Al Qaeda's web of Islamism/terrorism in the Middle East, the Associated Press today reports that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's group (the main group guilty of terrorist atrocities in Iraq) today declared allegiance to Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda's Middle East Web

2004-10-17T21:34:00.000-05:00

Herbert London writes in today's Washington Times about the Islamist/terrorist web Al Qaeda has in the Middle East.

In the shadowy network of terrorist groups, there are often alignments involving information-sharing, weapons development, safe houses and scientific expertise.

The unmistakable rationale for these alignments is future terror attacks against the United States and Israel. None of this is surprising. Immediately after September 11, 2001, not only Hamas approached al Qaeda, but Yasser Arafat's own forces, Al Aqsa Brigades, did so too.

...

The idea of killing on behalf of Islam is glorified both by the Palestinian terror organization and al Qaeda. In addition to the usual sanctification of suicide bombing, both groups approve of religious-based murder within the Islamic community.

Muslims who collaborate with the United States or are suspected of doing so are deemed Murtaddun (apostates) and a sentence of Murtadd Harbi is applied—to wit, a Fatwa or death sentence. The pertinent Koranic verse is: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and strive to make mischief in the land, is only this—that they should be murdered or crucified, or their hands and feet should be cut off on opposing sides."

...[I]t is not uncommon for all these organizations to target the presumptively "unforgivable" sin of American ties to "apostates and criminals" who rule in Kuwait, Jordan, the Arab Emirates, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

On Dec. 2, 2002, al Qaeda announced establishment of the "Islamic al Qaeda Organization in Palestine." The announcement declared "a vow of allegiance to the emir of the Mujahideen, the leader Osama bin Laden, by means of whom Allah strengthened the Nation of Islam." Calling for an end to regimes that "serve only the murderous Jews and the Great Satan," the announcement concludes with a plea to "our brothers in Islam in Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to attack the American interests and the heretical institutions of apostasy....Death to the Jews and Zionism; death to America; strength to Allah, Allah is great, and victory to Islam."

Although rarely reported in the West, al Qaeda now operates in the West Bank and Gaza at Mr. Arafat's expressed invitation, and with substantial logistical support. Mr. Arafat had imported Hezbollah fighters from Iran and Syria to assist with terrorist attacks against Israel; now he has added Osama bin Laden's Islamic fighters to the deadly terrorist mix.

According to authoritative Israeli intelligence sources, Mr. Arafat assembled under his wing Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Hezbollah, Jibril's Popular Front, Iraqi military intelligence units (Palestinian terrorists were always close to Saddam, even sending Palestine Liberation Army units to help torture Kuwaitis in 1991), the pro-Iraqi Arab liberation Front, and, since April 2002, al Qaeda.

Arguably, the most important perception that emerges from this analysis is the terror network has no walls between the various organizations. Palestinian terrorists have friendly allies in al Qaeda and vice versa. It is therefore absurd to think Mr. Arafat is a potential American friend and Osama bin Laden an enemy. They are both enemies.

Faced with the potential of al Qaeda-Palestinian terror, Americans should understand the unavoidably best approach to threats of mass destruction is timely, vigorous and dedicated pre-emption against all who threaten us and our interests.

At a minimum, we should stop sending our tax dollars to Yasser Arafat and his corrupt Palestinian Authority.

Karzai's Rival Alleges Poor Showing Is Result of Fraud

2004-10-17T21:22:00.000-05:00

The Associated Press reports that:

[Interim president of the state of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai's] main challenger, Yunus Qanooni, insisted that a full count and a proper investigation by a panel of foreign experts on fraud allegations could yet put him in the running. He said his acceptance of the final results depends on the thoroughness of the probe.

"If they are able to separate the fraud from the wishes of the people, at that time we will see if the election is legitimate," he told The Associated Press. "Anything else is a coup."

...

Receiving supporters at his spacious Kabul home Sunday, Qanooni insisted that "if there was no cheating, I can tell you that I would be the winner."

A dozen tribal leaders reclined on plump armchairs, telling tales of alleged ballot box stuffing, sometimes with the collusion of police and local government officials.

There has been remarkable transformation in Afghanistan in the three years' time since the United States ousted the Taliban from power and thereafter established the foundation for a constitutional republic with democratically elected representation.

One week ago, the first election ever in the more than 5000 years' history of the Afghani people took place for the leadership of their state. Now, based on polls and a preliminary tally of the ballots, the second-placed candidate, Yunus Qanooni, refuses to concede the election to the first-placed Hamid Karzai alleging fraud and intimidation of voters in favor of Mr. Karzai and against Mr. Qanooni. Several tribal leaders support him in his claims. He says that if the U.N.-Afghani election body "is able to separate the fraud from the wishes of the people, at that time we will see if the election is legitimate," and that, "Anything else is a coup."

The situation echoes the position of Al Gore and Democrats after the 2000 election, and John Kerry and Democrats now before the 2004 election.

Thus, the U.S. has transformed Afghani politics from primitive rule-by-force to post-modern deconstructionist, which is representation determined by democratic election followed by the loser alleging the election illegitimate due to fraud and intimidation followed by judicial adjudication to determine the winner. (If reading and understanding the previous sentence was difficult, note that the reality it describes is even more so.)

Canadian Submarine's Hatches Were Open in Very Rough Weather

2004-10-16T22:33:00.000-05:00

The Globe and Mail reports today that the Canadian submarine that experienced an on-board fire from an electrical explosion, the smoke from which killed one sailor, was running on the surface in very rough weather and had its hatches open, allowing water to enter the vessel.

Although there may be extenuating reasons for have done so, and a probe is underway to determine precisely what happened, it seems that the mishap was a result of failures of judgment.

A fascinating and revealing thing about this story is the way the Canadian press is covering it. The coverage is markedly different in tone from that about an incident of friendly fire in Afghanistan where, in a combat zone, unlike the incident with the submarine, an American pilot mistook fire from Canadian soldiers engaged in a live-fire exercise near the front-line for enemy fire and dropped a bomb, killing several Canadians. Then, all reports included remarks and had a tone that condemned the pilot and accused him of recklessness and disregard for the welfare of the Canadians—without giving the pilot the benefit of the doubt regarding the extreme circumstances.