Kerry's Curious Calculations

Back from California. The Golden State is much the same as I remembered -- beautiful but nutty. It is a great place to visit, but ... Was getting a cup of coffee (actually two) and was late and on the way out the door when I overheard some skinhead "barista" bragging to his side-of-head-shaved female friend that he had told a sailor customer that "Bush is a terrorist." The skinhead recounted that the sailor didn't see it the same way and implored the miscreant to "Stop talking about my boss that way." Unfortunately, I regret that I was unable to return to offer my thoughts to this misguided coffee-serving citizen ... but they went something like this in my feeble, Marine Corps-warped mind: "If the President were a terrorist, then vermin like you wouldn't be able to run your suck while it is unattached to anything in your grape."

While I was gone, I see that the would-be commander-in-chief had his convention and got a "bounce" of minus one. Don't believe me? See www.rasmussenreports.com, which shows Kerry's pre-convention "lead" of two points is down to one, as of today. How can this be? After all, looks like tough sledding continues in Iraq, with more kidnappings, threatened beheadings and a car-bombing that killed 70 Iraqis. So, why don't voters, in particular the military and their families that Kerry now seems to believe he can court, seem ready to go with the Viet Nam veteran on the national security issue?

Kerry's problem is that he tries to have it both ways on Iraq by "committing" to the troops (and even sending more) in his acceptance speech while continuing to call into question the mission. But U.S. servicemembers in particular don't and won't buy this. They see Kerry's double-speak for what it is. That is, military people, with a few whining exceptions, see Kerry as a perpetual bilge-spewer, a double-talker to be disrespected just as much as Clinton was. And on this score, Clinton may think that he loathed the military. Yet, those of us who were on active duty during the dreaded Clinton years in fact did loathe him.

And ... do you want to hear something here that no one in the media will mention? Military people don't care about Kerry's four months in Viet Nam and his three purple hearts. I am highly suspicious of Kerry or any other squid getting three purple hearts without at least some Marines in the vicinity. Plus, his college chums at Yale recall that Kerry talked of going into politics before he went to Viet Nam. Therefore, his military service was volunteered and his decision to return home after minor wounds resulted in his third purple heart was made with Kerry's personal political calculations and aspirations admittedly in view.

These political calculations continued after he returned to the States, and Kerry rode the wave of anti-war sentiment. He began to run down his comrades still facing enemy fire, even resorting to accusing them of war crimes, all the while admitting to his own UCMJ violations for failing to report the alleged crimes. He took his case to capitol hill. He threw away his ribbons, medals, whatever.

Bottom line: Even as a young man, John Kerry was having it both ways on national security. In this way, he is strangely and eerily consistent.

The most unseemly thing of all is Kerry's misusage of his wartime service for personal advantage. To serve America in uniform is a great honor; it is not a commercial or political opportunity. To use this honor for personal advancement offends all Americans who have worn this country's uniform. It appears that the party that argued that politics ends "at the water's edge" during the Clinton years has now nominated a candidate who seems intent upon fishing for all the votes he can get.

In fact, Kerry so often deals the Viet Nam card from his campaign deck that one has to wonder if his military service wasn't part of some grander plan to promote himself all along. It may offend some that this question is posed. However, Kerry's national security "agenda" (I served in Viet Nam, and in case that doesn't convince you, I served in Viet Nam ... repeat, etc.) coupled with his strange awakening and peace activism after his four-month hitch makes one wonder.

I see that some of my brothers just can't understand the nuances of "voting for the 87 billion before voting against it". We just must be too simple. In case you didn't hear, it seems that Kerry and Edwards stumbled into some Marines in a Wendy's over the weekend in Newburgh, New York. See this inspiring story of Marines doing their best to win the War on Jihad: www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/25935.htm.

Apparently, Edwards was there with his wife for their anniversary (a rich guy, but apparently a cheapskate), when Kerry went over to start politicking the unsuspecting Marines. The Marines were polite, as usual, but then they lit into Kerry when asked by reporters about the encounter. One Marine tried to be diplomatic: "I'm 100 percent against him." Another sergeant, in explaining his eagerness about his upcoming deployment to Iraq, said, "I speak for all of us. We think we are doing the right thing in Iraq."

Kerry might try to market his wartime vacillations as evidence of "intellectual curiosity". But to the Marines and to most Americans who care about defending this land from all enemies foreign and domestic, it sounds a lot like the familiar refrain of political calculation and good ol'-fashioned flip-flopping.

Out and ...

Semper Fidelis

Coalition is not Compromise

We are at war, in case you haven't noticed, and thus I have little patience these days for the "perfect church" crowd. Let me explain. You see, I believe in a perfect church. However, it is not located on this side of the Celestial City. Before we pilgrims cross the river to that holy place and meet Jesus Christ face to face, we should be skeptical of claims that any church, which is populated merely by falliable sinners, is perfect. As Dallas Theological Seminary's sage Dr. Howard Hendricks argued years ago, "If you find a perfect church, don't join it. You'll ruin it."

Yet, various well-meaning types, believing earnestly that their doctrine in all areas of life is indeed perfect, still try to impose a standard of perfection upon governmental institutions that is not even sustainable in a church, much less a congressional committee room. The result is disillusionment and ultimately windmill tilting in commune-like counter-culture movements masquerading as meaningful political involvement. That's a fancy way of saying, they are wasting their time while pretending to do something important. However, for those on the left inclined to vote for Ralph Nader, I say "Go Ralph Go." If the enemies of American security want to cast a de facto vote against Kerry, they have my full support.

My concern is with conservatives, in particular Christian conservatives -- whose natural allegiances should be with Pres. Bush -- that toy with either not voting or with voting for Libertarian or Constitution party candidates because of the president's perceived shortcomings. I wish these windmill tilters were just wasting their time. However, such misguided endeavors can be dangerous, particularly in this time of war, when our national survival is indeed on the table.

Further, these efforts are foolish and counter-productive, because the end result of a Bush loss is a Kerry victory and vice-versa. Thus, the perfect church crowd seeks a cure it admits is worse than the current "disease".

Nonetheless, some of the perfect church crowd on the right criticize Pres. Bush for being everything from:

• "pro-sodomite" -- Now there's a unifying, coalition-building description.
• "biblically unqualified" -- ironically, this slander emanates from avowed Constitution party supporters. You might have missed the Constitution's discussion of the biblical qualifications of presidents.
• "pro-illegal immigration" and outright "liberal". These are fighting words indeed.

The Bush critics on the right might have one of these debates to preserve the union interrupted by a dirty bomb explosion some day if they are successful in ousting Pres. Bush. In 2000, recall that a number of Christians stayed home because of disappointment in revelations that Pres. Bush was driving under the influence many years earlier in Maine. As a result, we all nearly had Al Gore in the White House on 9/11. Was it wise to "stand on principle" because of Pres. Bush's DWI? The jihadis think so.

This past week, I was greatly encouraged when I came across one of the best discussions of the risks of perfect churchism, in a column written by Dr. Marvin Olasky of World Magazine. While I was writing "Independent Thoughts" (see 7/3 post), Dr. Olasky was composing a brilliant piece detailing how that America even from the beginning in the Declaration of Independence, was the result of coalitions coming together for the benefit of the country as a whole.

Dr. Olasky's main point: Coalition is not compromise. It is hanging together, and, as Benjamin Franklin noted, without it, we will "hang separately". Thus, we need all conservatives today to pull together with the only political party that welcomes us and has a chance of winning not only the election, but also the truly life-or-death War on Jihad.

Quick Scoreboard Check from the War Spinning out of Control

Here's a quick rundown of today's scores in the War on Jihad: 

1) In action in Ramadi today, it was U.S. Marines 25, Jihadis 0.

2) In Washington, the 9/11 Commission's report final score was:  Bush 1, Congress 0, 1 tie Congress is faulted for failure to oversee U.S. intelligence efforts, while the Commission faults the Administration for declaring war on the nebulous forces of "terror".  Actually, this is a good point, it is the War on Jihad, but the same politically correct types that populate the 9/11 commission forbid such descriptions ... or wars, for that matter.

3)  And in southern Afghanistan, the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit finished its four-month deployment and redeployed to the Persian Gulf.  Final score:   Marines 100, Jihadis trying to disrupt Afghan elections 1. 

4) And back in Washington, while flailing away trying to explain classified documents in his shorts as an "honest mistake", Sandy Berger is still batting in the top of the first ... no score.  Fortunately for him, the forces of indignation in the press wasted all their tough pitches and energy on the Iraqi prison scandal.   

Well, that about wraps it up.  Clearly, this thing is spinning out of control ... for the same people who have been wishing for American failure since the beginning, that is. 

Out

 

Frenchmen for Kerry ...

Now we learn that Pres. Clinton's former National Security Adviser and Kerry (until today) campaing consultant removed classified documents from the National Archives ... putting them in his socks and underwear??!!!?? ... and he can't find them? What?  And we also find out that these memos, rather draft memos, apparently discussed the Clinton administration response to al Queda in the U.S. during 1998-1999, that is prior to the U.S.S. Cole attack and prior to 9/11.  And the media/Demorats/same thing coalition wonders about the timing of this leak.  No kidding.  Why didn't we know about this when it happened last October? 

The 9/11 commission was already a joke.  It has been stumbling around, trying to look relevant while at the same time attempting to lay the blame for 9/11, at least in large part, on the Bush Administration.  The 9/11 commission lost all credibility it might have had when it failed to dismiss former Clinton justice department official Jamie Gorelick, after her "wall of separation" memo surfaced as a key component in the problem of  the lack of CIA-FBI information sharing.  Now, we find that out some of the commission's key evidence has been in the shorts of the Kerry campaign.

How can this happen?  How can this be?  Simple.  Francois Berger is a vocal opponent of America's national security efforts.  As an opponent of America's efforts to win the the War on Jihad, Berger is naturally for Kerry, as are Kerry's French ancestors and President Pepe le Pew de Clinton.  Clinton's comment about Berger's inadvertent brief-stuffing:  "We all laughed about it."  I bet they did.

These Democrats are "girlie men".  The Terminator was right.  In fact, though, they are worse.  They are Frenchmen.   

Meanwhile, because 9/11 happened you will recall that we still have troops in Afghanistan, seeking out and killing the enemy jihadis who are trying to derail the national October elections.  Imagine that.  Terrorists that oppose the democratic process.  Well, American forces killed one and captured a few more today, including a brother-in-law of Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader.  You see, Omar has or had four wives.  That's a tough crowd to keep on the road, moving from cave to cave.   You do what you have to, but he might get nagged to death, if he doesn't get a missile up his robe. 

These days, there is a lot to be concerned about, to worry about, and to be mad about in this world.  So, why be optimistic?  Because we are on offense in this war.  The Frenchmen and other national security adversaries make noise, preach the virtues of the U.N. and tentativeness, and urge us to play defense.  They urge such a course of action knowing that free societies by definition have systemically weak defenses at home.

But, I am optimistic because we have the best offense in the world, and I like our quarterback.  

Question:  When did Kerry find out about the Berger investigation?  And why does Berger now have to leave the campaign?  Is his brief- and sock-stuffing a problem only upon discovery?  Maybe some one will ask.  And maybe they will ask the senator from Massachusetts ...

Just why are the French and the enemies of American national security supporting John Kerry? 

Annoy the French.  Vote Bush.

Jihadis Losing PR Battle

Here in America, oh how we love to misoverestimate our enemies ...
 
We know that the jihadis are  committed.  I mean, you need commitment to sign up for gigs that end (often) in your own death.  A good portion of them seems happy to die as martyrs.  This presents both challenges  and opportunies, of course, but that is a discussion for another day. 
 
However, the geniuses fighting the new Iraqi government and our own troops in Iraq are somehow managing to lose the public relations war on both  fronts: 1) in the Arab world, and 2) in the world at large.  
 
First, let's look at what is becoming  a common image in the sovereign Iraq:  People standing around a pile of concrete in Fallujah that used to be a storehouse for weapons and terrorists.  Said terrorists are now under the rubble, and the people in these pictures look on with some degree of amazement at the precision and deadliness.   Plus, the crowds must know that Iraqis are ratting out these terrorists, which makes staying  in one place in Iraq and planning new attacks somewhat difficult.  Additionally, this type of precise, deadly raid continues to reinforce to the Arab world that -- in spite of our pullback in Fallujah and elsewhere to facilitate the turnover of Iraqi security to Iraqis -- we maintain the ability to find and destroy terrorists suddenly and without warning.  With terrorists, aggressive brute force and playing offense works.  You can't score unless you are hunting for them.
 
Second, the jihadis continue their beheading campaign, which seeks, I suppose, to prove the immorality of the occupying infidels.  However,  continuation of this barbaric practice reminds us again each time -- as with the apparent discovery of a beheaded Bulgarian hostage  over the weekend -- of just what we are up against.  This is not patty-cakes.  Some, such as the Spanish Socialists and the weak-knees in the Philipines, may cave with their small forces, but most of the civilized world is seeing over and over the justice of our cause.  And our new and true allies, such as Bulgaria and Poland, are staying the course along with one of our oldest and best, Great Britain.
 
Speaking of old friends ... I see that Lance Armstrong is doing it again, prevailing in France, much to the dismay of the supicious French.  And thus we are reminded why we love Lance so.  First, he is just plain the best at what he does.  Plus, he tirelessly prepares and competes.  But, perhaps most importantly, he annoys the French.
 
So, in light of the foregoing ... here is a bumper sticker that the commander-in-chief should consider using in the campaign, though he probably  can't: 
 
"ANNOY THE FRENCH.  VOTE BUSH"
 
Here's a question for your undecided friends in swing states? Just why does France, that ally of old but de facto adversary in the War on Terror, support John Kerry?  

Who's Gonna Win This War? Let's Vote

A storm cloud looms over this War on Jihad ... and that storm cloud rolls in on November 3, 2004 when voters will decide whether to select a new commander-in-chief to lead the battle going forward. I saw on www.rasmussenreports.com that Kerry now leads Bush in Florida 48% to 43%. Bush led a month ago, and few weeks ago the two candidates were tied. Now Kerry has tabbed Edwards as his younger, energizing hugging buddy. So, the lifeless Kerry campaign now appears poised to make this a race all the way to the end.

The bottom line: It's going to probably go down to the wire and be another harrowing experience. Given the experience of 2000, here is a modest proposal to decide our referendum on the commander-in-chief: Let's look for a representative sample of America to vote, a smaller yet more reliable sample of people who would vote in the nation's interest.

What would be the criteria for this group? Let's see. We should try to get a good number of "working people", whatever that is. But, let's agree that we look for a group that works hard, first off. And ... we need people who have the country's best interest at heart, people who will do what the country asks/needs, even if they may not be fully on board. Here, we want people who are interested in protecting others' rights, more than demanding their own. Also, let's compromise with the Democrats and find a group that doesn't make a lot of money. Also, they must not have any lobbyists representing them. And ... we should have a mix of people from all over the country, from all races, and even all religions. And ... we should throw in some educated types, you know, desk jockeys. I guess these are what the politicians consider "non-working" people. At any rate, you get the picture. Let's have a mixture of all types, from the mechanic to the shop managers. And ... oh yeah, one more thing ...

Let's pick a group that has more invested personally in winning this War on Jihad than any other. This should be a definite. Let's pick a group that has sacrificed and will continue to do so. And finally, this group has to have a higher percentage of heroes than the population at large.

And our group is, of course: the U.S. military. Yes, our brave troops that are now running the terrorists out of both the streets of Iraq and the caves of Afghanistan. It's happening, as I write this. Just because you don't see a press conference every time a terrorist takes a dirt nap doesn't mean it's not occurring. Some things matter more than PR to our military, like winning. For instance, have you heard about any suicide bombings (an al Queda trademark) lately in Iraq? Reports out of Iraq are that Zarqawi's crew is trying to make for Saudi Arabia. Problem is that the Marines are west of Baghdad, and they have guns, and use them on jihadis. Ooops.

Bottom line: Our troops are making it happen. And ... we have peace and security here in within the USA since 9/11 to prove it.

So ... let's let our military decide the election, straight up. How about it? Who do you think they want to command them without apology, to equip them, to support them, to give them every tool they need to fight and win this war?

The answer lies in remembering which party last election tried to keep the military's absentee ballots (sight unseen) from being counted in Florida. And how, pray tell, did the Democrats know that those ballots would be overwhelmingly pro-Bush? Remember that? The military does.

Bottom line in this election: Our military wants its commander-in-chief to keep his job. In these times, not much more needs to be said.

Out

"Religion of Pieces?"

A few quick thoughts today:

1) So, where is USMC Cpl. Hassoun? Did he in fact leave his unit on the way to Lebanon and get intercepted by terrorists? That is the report. Then, after it looked like he had been murdered, the terrorists claim that he has been released because he was a Muslim and pledged not to return to his unit. His family apparently believes that he is alive. If so, he should be hunted down and prosecuted for desertion during a time of war.

2) A vigilante Iraqi group, ironically called the "Salvation Army" ... now, that one I like ... is telling the Jordanian terrorist al-Zarqawi to leave Iraq or die. The SA decries Zarqawi's continuing terrorism against Iraqis and his defiling of Islam. It's about time that Arabs and Muslims rose up and called barbarism by its name and treated it appropriately. And if you are wondering why the hard feelings by this Iraqi group ...

3) Consider that terrorists yesterday used a car bomb to kill 14 Iraqis who were mourning others recently murdered by jihadis, and

4) Two Iranian intelligence officers were captured with bomb-making materials in Baghdad. I thought the Iranians were sensitive about the Iran-Iraq border, or is that just with the Brits?

5) Oh, yeah. Kerry picked Edwards as his VP running mate. The Democrats are running like this war is over. Of course, Democrats have for the past 40 years acted like wars wouldn't happen ... and then they did. And then presidents like Reagan and Bush had to win them.

Independent Thoughts ...

Some thoughts from this American on this Independence Day:

July 4, 1776 was the beginning of America. On that date, the founders pledged in support of American freedom: their lives, their fortunes, and their "sacred honour". They were right to do so, because July 4, 1776 marked the beginning of a long and difficult war with England ...

You can have peace without conflict. You can not have freedom without conflict ...

In human events, freedom is the exception rather than the rule, in large part because of the prior thought, and also because ...

Although individual human beings yearn to be and are indeed meant to be free because they are created in the image of God, the fallibility of human beings means that remaining free requires constant vigilance ...

Because you can't have freedom without conflict, you need people with courage to defend freedom ...

It's not natural to face conflict courageously, and thus most people in history have not lived in freedom ...

Courage is a moral quality, and thus, we need morality to defend freedom against all enemies foreign and domestic ...

This nation's founders consistently stated and argued that this Republic would not survive without guidance and strength provided by the God of the Bible. This reliance of the Providence of God was a consistent and non-controversial belief in America until the 1960s ...

With the passing of President Reagan, we were recently reminded of just how the late, great president inspired this "City on a Hill" to courageously face down Soviet Communism to defend freedom ...

Now, Pres. Bush has told us that he has a "charge to keep", a sacred appointment, if you will, to fufill his duties as chief executive of these United States, and these duties after 9/11 have been called into sharp focus ...

This president's number one job is to protect America and defend our freedom. Chase the jihadis into every cave, crack and crevice where they may hide and make them play defense rather than plotting attacks against Americans and ...

Make them pay dearly for making the same two mistakes that all of our prior enemies have made: 1) waking us up; and 2) "misunderestimating" us ...

This fight takes courage ...

This fight takes strength and endurance, for it will be long ...

But we know that in the end, as we beat the Nazis and the Communists, we will prevail over these fascist jihadis, for the same reasons we prevailed over previous totalitarians ...

Because God has blessed America and its people, we have become the greatest nation ever ...

But it's not automatic that we stay that way, because ...

You can have peace without conflict. You can not have freedom without conflict, so ...

God bless America.

Not a Muslim Brother?

Associated Press is reporting that a group of terrorists, the Ansar Al-Sunna Army (do we really care what they call themselves? All you need to know is that they are apparently not affiliated with Zarqawi) has killed U.S. Marine Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun. My thoughts and prayers go out for Hassoun's family tonight. Apparently, the terrorists determined that Cpl. Hassoun did not qualify as a "Muslim brother", like the three Turks who were recently released.

The New York Times is reporting that, according to an unnamed Marine officer, Hassoun left his unit for Lebanon after becoming distraught when a fellow Marine was killed by a mortar round. He sought help from some Iraqis, and these "Muslim brothers" turned him over to the terrorists.

Raw acts of barbarism such as these that are perpetrated in the name of Islam lay bare the truth that at least the brand of Islam practiced by the hate-America crowd certainly does not qualify as the "Religion of Peace". The murder of Hassoun also reveals that the War on Jihad is principally a political, rather than a religious struggle. The truth is that these savages we are fighting have killed many Muslims ... what, in the name of Islam? ... and they will kill as many as necessary to obtain power, keep women in burkas, and the rest of us in the 14th century or so. There is no use trying to understand the incomprehensibly violent and oppressive. We must destroy it.