Wednesday, October 20, 2004


AMERICAN REVOLUTION WAS WRONG WAR, WRONG PLACE, WRONG TIME?: Jimmy Carter (former President, Nobel Peace Prize winner, author and Conqueror of Killer Rabbits) tells Hairball with Chris Matthews that he thinks the War of 1776 "could have been avoided." WHAT were they thinking!?! If only they had sent the peanut farmer over to negotiate with ole King George we coulda grown up just like Canada! Sounds like a dream come true for liberals. But hold yer hosses... That probably means that the Republic of Texas would have remained sovereign rather than get yoked with a bunch of girly men and the Texas president, George W, mighta been telling President Kerry of the International States of America that "Y'all either with us or agin us!" Hmmm... I wonder how many of the territories would have decided to hook up with Texas instead of IS?

REDEFINING "IS" AGAIN?: "I have my view, and my view is my view. I can't tell you in 20 years or whenever, if someone made a persuasive argument, the world changes. ... So I don't predict the future. What I tell you is that my position is what it is." --John Kerry

BEING KETCHUP QUEEN IS THE REAL WORK: Managing billions of dollars left to you by your husband must be such a big experience in responsibility and so nuanced that being a teacher and librarian just doesn't seem like "real jobs" or so saith the queen in a USA Today interview. I guess that means stay-at-home Moms are not doing a REAL job, either!!?!!

UPDATE: The Ketchup Queen issues an apology... but still disses all the men and women making the sacrifices required to have a mom be able to raise the kids instead of a daycare facility...

"I had forgotten that Mrs. Bush had worked as a school teacher and librarian, and there couldn't be a more important job than teaching our children. As someone who has been both a full time mom and full time in workforce, I know we all have valuable experiences that shape who we are. I appreciate and honor Mrs. Bush's service to the country as First Lady, and am sincerely sorry I had not remembered her important work in the past."

BUNKER BUSTERS: More evidence of John Kerry's continued opposition to defending the US was the stand he has taken against the 'Bunker Busters.' On a number of occasions he has accused the president of spending "hundreds of millions" to build bunker-busting nukes. As a WSJ article details, the president is not building new nukes he has authorized a feasibility study to look into modifying an existing weapon so it can bust through rock. Now I wonder why on earth we would have any use for such a weapon? Oh, and it isn't "hundreds of millions" it was $6.5 million in 2003, $7.5 in 2004 and $27.5 for this next fiscal year.

FAVORITE BUMPER STICKER: I Actually Voted For John Kerry... Before I Voted Against Him

ELECTION MONITORS: According to Fox News, Iran's Basij militia has asked UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to allow their leaders to join the monitors of the US election. They insist that their presence is necessary to guarantee that the presidential election goes smoothly. They also state their intentions to "ridicule the so-called democratic slogans of the American leaders." Makes me wonder if it is possible for a citizen to file suit against the 13 Democratic Representatives who took it upon themselves to invite the UN to interfere with our elections!

NON-BANANA? HOW ABOUT COCONUT REPUBLICS?: As the evidence mounts in the UN Oil for Food scandal, Kofi Annan is scrambling to cover up the rotten fruit. He is claiming that it's "inconceivable" that countries such as France, Russia or China could be involved in such a scheme "You are not dealing with banana republics" he states. So they are too busy conducting Important Country business to have a hand in Saddam's pocket? What about your son Mr. Annan? Read La République des Bananes in the WSJ.

ONLY UN WORTH DYING FOR: Or so states Kerry. The Washington Post has a article by Helen Dewer and Thomas E. Ricks that looks at Kerry's rather obsessive (my adjective) need for world approval. So intense is that need, that when asked if intervening in Bosnia was worth American lives, he answered, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."

The WaPo staffers seem to think Kerry's view on using military force is more 'nuanced' than just being against it.

"He opposed U.S. support for right-wing "contra" forces in Nicaragua in the 1980s but supported military action in Panama in 1989. He voted against going to war against Iraq in 1991 but supported military action in Haiti and the Balkans and voted to authorize war against Iraq in 2002. In many of these cases, he argued for international operations, involving the United Nations or NATO, but, in the case of the 2002 debate over Iraq, he was willing to authorize war without guarantee of broad allied support. Likewise, he has a mixed record on key weapons programs, supporting most defense bills but opposing some that funded systems such as the B-2 stealth bomber, which he called too costly."

After compiling a list of Kerry's 30-year record of public stances and Senate votes, I have concluded (as others have) that in the case of Mr. Kerry, nuance is a synonym for expedient.(WSJ Opinion Journal-Best of the Web also mentions the story and an audio clip was played by Rush)

INTERNATIONALISM: In the Korea Herald, Park Sang-seek, Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University compares the Internationalism between Bush and Kerry. He says Bush "advocates American internationalism. It consists of traditional realism and unilateralism. In other words, the pursuit of American national interests should come before anything else."

According to Sang-seek, Kerry also believes in internationalism, but of a different kind. "His internationalism is a multilateral internationalism in the sense that the United States should get involved in international issues if it believes its national interests are directly affected or likely to be affected by them, but it should pursue its interests with the support and cooperation of its allies and pertinent international organizations, particularly the United Nations. In this sense, his foreign policy posture is a mixture of realism and idealism."

That sums it up pretty good for me... and reconfirms my choice in this election. But Sang-seek goes further to analyze how the two men would handle a nuclear showdown...

"Take a hypothetical situation in the Korean Peninsula: it is discovered that North Korea has experimented with nuclear weapons or exported nuclear materials to hostile nations or terrorist groups. Bush may make a surgical strike without consulting South Korea and the United Nations. Kerry is likely to try to solve the issue through multilateral forums, particularly the United Nations."

He continues with a look at the two different approaches to the pre-crisis talks that are presently going on.

"Concerning the denuclearization of North Korea, both candidates have no difference of opinion. But they differ on the method: Bush for the six-party talks and Kerry for bilateral talks. In other words, Kerry wants to revert to the Clinton approach. But it does not mean that Kerry will ignore the contributions by other concerned parties in view of his multilateralism. He seems to believe direct negotiations are more effective than a multilateral forum as far as the North Korean nuclear issue is concerned. Bush says North Korea will deceive America again if only the two meet, but Kerry believes that the United States will not be deceived again."

If I didn't already know who was best for this country, Park Sang-seek sure could help me make my mind up. I really can't tell who this college professor, peace-nik type is favoring since he seems to write without any obvious slant or bias (wonder if he would consider teaching a course here... Journalism Without Spin: 101.)

You have a right to your own opinions - You do not have a right to your own facts!