Tuesday, November 09, 2004


I have been on something of a breather since the election because blogging can be taxing and time-consuming, wearing pajamas or not. But I see the election as a victorious battle not the end of the war.

We, at Right Wing Warriors are now looking to carry forth the fight to eradicate liberalism. I hope many other bloggers do the same... we still have a war to win.

That liberals have declared open warfare on Republicans and the right has been blatantly apparent from the unfettered hatred and venom that has spewed from the left. Now that the Main Stream Media has openly declared their alliance in this war for the heart and soul of America, the Write Wing Warriors and Pajama Patriots have a vital role in defending our victory.

Expect the liberals to redouble their efforts to sabotage President Bush in every endeavor. Without regard to the welfare of this country, liberal Democrats, and their willing MSM allies, will attempt to discredit and undermine this administration in the War on Terrorism or any other situation or program whose success might credit the president.

I am currently compiling a detailed look at the left and guesses at their probable areas of attack.

Monday, November 08, 2004


"Media missed the passion that burned for Bush"

You got this much right, but do you have any clue why?

"If pop culture is a reflection of a nation's values, then the signs of a Bush victory were there a long time ago for anyone to see."

Pop culture had NOTHING to do with it.

"There've been two runaway box-office surprises this year: Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ."

One was a production of half-truths, twisted-truths, perversions of the truth and outright lies put together solely for the purpose of getting a president out of office... the other wasn't.

"The point probably wasn't lost on President Bush and his staff."

President Bush's faith and beliefs did not began as, nor was it used as, a campaign strategy and people of faith, for the most part, can tell the difference. People believed President Bush was sincere, because he was. People thought Kerry was not, because he wasn't. Take note, that President Bush himself, unlike Kerry, never criticized nor questioned Kerry's faith, or more accurately, (in my humble opinion) Kerry's posturing.

"Religious Right ... influential evangelical Christians ... Wal-Mart Republicans ... By any name, they ultimately turned the outcome of the election."

Did you forget fundamental, right-wing-wackos? How about the vast-right-wing-conspiracy?

Once upon a time, the journalists, talking heads and pundits called them the salt of the earth, pillars of the community, and the heart and soul of America...

"The Bush political team intuitively understood the tone of the U.S. voters much better than the media did."

Wrong again, Word Slinger... You got close, but only semantically, not knowledgeably. President Bush, understood US voters because he thinks and believes the way most US voters think and believe.

"To be honest, I still don't quite understand how certified media junkies like me could have been so wrong."

You answer your own dilemma here...

"I read the New York Times (NYT) and the New Yorker religiously. I watch CNN (TWX) and the networks' evening news programs as well as the gabfests on Sunday mornings, too."

There you go! In the "ignorant red state" circles we call it preaching to the choir... and you just happen to be a member of this particular choir.

"...the heartland tuned out the noise."

Maybe you do get it, at least to a small degree. ... But, then again... maybe not.

"Team Bush figured out where the votes would be coming from and it played to the audience, relentlessly."

Once again... President Bush, understood US voters because he thinks and believes the way most US voters think and believe.

"The lesson that the media should take away from the 2004 election is this: It's just as important to know all about who is voting for president as it is to know about who is running for president."

Perhaps, the lesson that the media should take away from the 2004 election is this: Red State Voters are not nearly as ignorant or stupid as the media think they are. And, the huge majority of them, are not mean-spirited cold-hearted, racist, homophobic or oppressive.

"Some people observed that many television news anchors and reporters actually seemed to be depressed by Bush's victory. It's fashionable for (my fellow) liberals to gnash their teeth and act as if the Bush win was some sort of horrendous freak of nature, like an earthquake or a hurricane."

Hey, we all know that the media did their best to defeat George W! You instructed all your staffers to NOT hold the President and Kerry to equal standards.You omitted stories that were favorable to the president, pushed unfavorable stories tirelessly, printed rumors from every single 'insider' known to man not to mention the infamous "some say."

Chin UP! Everyone knows the outstanding efforts put forth by the media to avoid pursuing any leads that might have had the slightest possibility of resulting in a news story that could be detrimental to Kerry.

And, when push came to shove ... you even planted phony or distorted stories to try to discredit President Bush. Nobody in this country can possibly blame the media for not doing it's gosh darned best to defeat this president!

And, trust me, we ignorant, red-state bumpkins are all going to remember the media's intense efforts come next election. Yesiree Bob and Dan and Pete and Tom and Dick and Harry and Jon ...

Unleash HELL!
Let loose the DOGS of WAR!


As my few... oh so few... regulars will know, I have taken an extended vacation from posting. AND even though I have a freelance job crop up, I am building a MAJOR rant that I will be posting to the myriad of analyses of why Bush won and why all the Demwits are going ape-sht.

Up to and including the comments off Hanity & Combs from the has-been Geraldine F. who spouted off her opinion that if the Blue States seceded from the Union the Red States would be sunk because the ONLY smart people live in the BLUE... oh yeah? OK, Mustn't gloat, mustn't gloat. This is not any different than what other Liberals are sprouting off... I have much to say about that... just stay tuned.

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Unfreakin believable... ya think the liberals are east and left coast but the map shows us county by county that virtually the whole freakin country is red! Posted by Hello


The Democrats just don't "get it." Already, the dems so-called soul-searching involves more bashing of Kerry as a candidate than realizing that conservative Republicans are NOT the dummies they think they are.

From the WSJ: "Even before he knew the result, NYT columnist Nick Kristof was lamenting today that these voters had been gulled into voting "utterly against their own interests." If that's what Democrats keep telling themselves, they doom their party."

I think the defining moment in this campaign is one that was overlooked by the media and most liberal democrats and forgotten by many conservatives. That moment was when Kerry called Whoopi and the Hollywood elite the "heart and soul of America."

NOTE: I may get around to doing a long, thoughtful reflection to the campaign and election, but for now, I will post some random, but oh so insightfull, thoughts as they come to me.

Wednesday, November 03, 2004


The Democrats have not had an election loss this huge since the last time they tried to thrust an ultra-liberal, candidate from Massachusetts upon this country, but they would rather make excuses, blame the Republicans and spout conspiracy claims than figure out why the country didn't want their lying liberal.

I think the Republicans have probably learned their lesson about not giving the fringe extremists power or a loud voice in the party. But then lessons rarely stay learned after new people move in to replace the battle-weary warriors. Therefore, we must be ever vigilant and never forget that more conservative changes and policies will be enacted when we are willing to work from a centrist position.

But the Democrats just don't get it. They should try actually choosing a strong centrist candidate, instead of one that just lies about it. Even when the MSM goes all in the efforts on behalf of the Democrat candidate, hoisting a lying liberal on this nation will seldom fly in the 'fly-over country' ... Especially when the lying liberal the Dems choose to represent them is one that flip-flops and lies so blatantly and transparently.

If they can't bring themselves to support a true centrist, then they should at least choose a liberal who is honest about it and proudly tries to convince the country that liberal is the way to go. But, judging by many of the comments being bandied about, they will probably continue slurping down the kool-aid and get a whole new set of tin-foil beanies.

I took the "Day After Election" off from blogging but will start sharing my post-election thoughts, same as everyone else, later Thursday evening.

Tuesday, November 02, 2004


Posted by Hello

D-DAY is here. DECISION DAY, the final day we have to show Iraq, the terrorists and the world whether we are going to stand firm or if we are going to cut-and-run. Make no mistake about it, that is exactly what Kerry will do. He has already used the phrase "getting our troops out of Iraq with honor." The last time he used those words Kerry was talking about Vietnam when he helped manipulate the public debate to such a degree that we did cut-and-run, allowing the wholesale slaughter of millions of South Vietnamese and Cambodians, many of them brave soldiers who had fought side-by-side with us and who were deserted after being promised refuge and safety.

So... Who are we going to choose? ... A man who has freed two countries from vicious, totalitarian regimes, centralized the war on terrorism half a world away from our own cities while working to put our economy back on the right track after suffering multiple economy busters like the Clinton era, 9/11 and the corporate clean-up? ... Will you choose a man of vision, whose strategies backed off the terrorists and caused Libya and Pakistan to stop their arms proliferation, and then, even with a war to prosecute, still initiated revolutionary and real changes in fundamental areas such as education, social security and Medicare? ... A man who has a visonary way of looking at problems and creating new solutions such as the ownership society, faith-based initiatives, using technology to clean the environment without trashing the economy and worker cards for illegal aliens? I've discovered that his thinking about the age-old illegal alien problem makes much more sense than I originally thought.

Are you willing to stick with a man who has the character, backbone and integrity to stick to his guns and stand up for what he believes is right, even in the midst of disgruntled supporters, global unpopularity and the hatred from the maniacal liberals?

OK, now, for the other choice... Kerry, the MAN with a PLAN. Everytime I hear Kerry talking about his so-called plans I expect him to break out in song... "Anything you can do, I can do better... I can do anything better than you..." He has taken every possible position, non-position or nuanced position on every issue at one time or the other. If you look closely, Kerry's plans amount to nothing more than, 'whatever Bush is doing I will do better' ... somehow, someway, someday. All his domestic plans pretty much consist of keeping things the way they are and hoping that nothing too obvious goes wrong before the next guy gets in office. The two exceptions are health care, which he will turn over to the Ketchup Queen so she can play with her favorite new-age toy "The Department of Wellness," and Foreign Policy.

And his foreign policy? Well... in a nutshell, his plan is to turn our sovereign interests over to his adored UN. You do recall that he said his very first act as president would be to call a meeting of the General Assembly of the UN? Presumably, so he can take his first global test and then kiss their butts, publicly and in person... then watch the kowtowing began in earnest, at least towards those who are NOT the "trumped-up, so-called coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought, and the extorted," or in other words, our REAL friends and allies.

As far as Kerry's record... just consider that he and his handlers CHOSE to run on his spurious medals and shaky 4 month record in Vietnam (including his probable dishonorable discharge which is being covered up with his refusal to release his military records.) You never or rarely hear anything from him or his campaign about his 20+ years in the senate, or as the state prosecutor or Lt. Gov. of MA. Need any more be said?

We will soon discover just how pervasive that dreaded disease, American Amnesia, has been over these last three years. How many voters have already forgotten how they felt that day on 9/11 and in the aftermath. Will they remember how they felt about the president and the man who withstood the greatest crisis of our century and emerged not only as great leader strengthened and tested by a purifying fire but he became a great man who carried an even greater burden of sorrow and responsibility for a nation's terrible pain and urgent need for security.

How can we, as a people of good conscience, allow some self-serving, pontificating politician (that has consistently sided with our enemies and detractors throughout his entire adult life) try to turn one of our greatest military victories into a "blunder, a botched operation" in which Bush let Osama bin Laden get away because the president had "outsourced'' his capture to "warlords'' in the battle of Tora Bora. Outsourcing by any other name is called an alliance (at least when Kerry is talking about himself.)

Nor is he satisfied with just trying to tarnish the president and call him a liar and incompetent, he is doing the same to General Tommy Franks, our military officers, special ops forces and now he is degrading and demeaning the 101st Airborne and 3rd Infantry Divison while trying to damage the President over the missing explosives. DeJa MOO... I think I've heard this BS before!

Let me once again remind any of ye, of short memory, about how the president put together a military operation in Afghanistan that accomplished what many said was impossible! It was less than two weeks before the detractors started screaming, "It's a Quagmire... Another Vietnam!" How I would love to shove that crow dinner down their throats! Ah, yes, within two months the CIC and his men had routed and put under control this country that had driven both the British and the Soviet empires into retreat. He also forced Pakistan into an alliance, gained cooperation from the neighbors to the north, and authorized a radical war plan that with just a handful of Americans on the ground, high technology and local militias the mighty Taliban was utterly routed! ... Bringing about an end to 25 years of civil war and held the first democratic election in a country that has no history of democracy. The naysayers, VietnamQuagmire-Squealers were wrong about Afghanistan and they are wrong about Iraq.

But let me jog your memory just a bit more... Remember the lesson we learned (or hopefully learned) with Clinton? The lesson that character really does matter after all? Besides being the Flipper King of DC, Kerry has lied bald-faced and repeatedly and even lies about lying. He was NOT in Cambodia (no matter how seared in his memory it was. He NEVER met with the UN Security Council in anything even closely resembling what he claimed. All the rest of his lies, not to mention his distortions and exaggerations, would take up more bandwidth than I am allowed.

So who will you choose? A man who has ushered in some of the most visonary and positive changes this country and world has ever see. ... An MVP (Most Valuable President) who has thrown the game winning pass in the play-offs and ready to lead us to victory in the Super Bowl?

Or, will you choose the Monday Morning Quarterback who only thinks he can do things better AFTER they have already been done? ... as he has proven by accomplishing nothing noteworthy in his career as senator. Are you going to chose a team captain whose only claim to fame is running the wrong way down the field and scoring a touchdown for the communist team?

Monday, November 01, 2004


Perhaps on Election Eve I am being more judgmental than I should... but here I sit an unread blogger that no one knows suffering from ESS (Election Stress syndrome) with perhaps 'nuances' that others don't have in that I truly believe that electing Kerry will have prophetic consequences... and perhaps I put way too much of my enthusiasm into the blogsphere... at least I think so as I read a NYTimes (the Shady Lady DNC whore) asking bloggers view on the contest between Bush and Kerry... I would not have expected the same view that I have... but I did expect a substance vs style analysis from the bloggers. I was greatly disappointed.

GREG DJEREJIAN,http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/: He used one example but did focus on an example that represented a core character issue.

ANA MARIE COX,http://www.wonkette.com/: Focused on BS issues but what would you expect from a wonkette. Betcha a bundle she's blonde either naturally or from a bottle.

MICKEY KAUS,http://www.kausfiles.com/: He votes against the president because George W did not nail Kerry in the first debate about his ignoramus claim of only supporting huge alliances when he didn't support one of the greatest alliances put together by Daddy Bush? Does he NOT realize how much more is at stake here then how someone performs in a debate???

LORIE BYRD,http://www.polipundit.com/: Again... as much as I respect and repeatedly return to polipundit for information and energy for the fight... this election is more than style and how one appears or presents oneself or a convention... the issues we are fighting for is so important that I am amazed that even those I thought understand still point to style rather than substance... read that to mean gut reality.

JOANNE JACOBS,http://www.joannejacobs.com/: I am sorry that I have not been to visit Joanne before now, she seems to get it... they want to kill us... pretty words and pictures... good photo ops or conventions don't really amount to more than... well BS.

ANN ALTHOUSE,http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/: I think Ann Althouse is one that finally got it... even if she isn't quite sure of what she has got.

J. BRADFORD DELONG,http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/: I am looking forward to getting to know J. Bradford Delong better, I cannot quite understand what he thinks from his paragraph here.

KEVIN DRUM,http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/: Another one who seems to value style and who looks best on camera over substance and core, gut level, reality... he is another one that will have to learn the hard way... and unfortunately probably force my grandchildren into facing the same devastating horrors when the terrorists destroy the very fabric of this country because too many of us preferred the pretty lies to hard reality.

DAVID ADESNIK,http://www.oxblog.com/: It appears his biggest problem is that he chooses to believe the Mainstream Media instead of thinking for himself.

JOHN HINDERAKER and SCOTT JOHNSON,http://www.powerlineblog.com/: I respect these two as much or more than I do any in the blogsphere... and I agree that it is of utmost importance that we understand the position the MSM has taken and the challenge bloggers must accept to either take the MSM down or force them to revert to the true and pure ethics of journalism. However important the showdown with MSM and the drawing of the line in the sand... it is even more important to bring the electorate back to demanding a honest, upright representative of this country that will fight for the core values that will preserve our union. Instead, of the fake shallow shell the MSM thrusts upon us... as I write I realize that I must bow to the wisdom Powerline has presented... my kudos and respect, sirs, for seeing to the core issue.

GLENN REYNOLDS,http://www.instapundit.com/: Having just seen a new revelation, as you can see above... I will also give a nod to Glenn and instapundit... with only a reminder that in addition to the fight against allowing main stream media to dictate our values and candidates is the fight agaisnt their liberal partners that want to disparage anyone that has backbone and character and honesty as a core part of their being.

TOM BURKA,http://www.tomburka.com/: Another of many that misunderestimate the enormity of 9/11 and how much had to take a backseat while a vicious enemy had to be conquered before other important projects... such as space could be stepped up... space exploration doesn't really mean much if Space Center Houston has been vaporized with a suitcase nuke, does it?


The son of the Ketchup Queen has come out over the weekend calling the president of the United States a "cokehead" which he later kinda, sorta, in-a-way, but not really, retracted in saying "I have no evidence. He never sold me anything," which translated means he doesn't care about the truth but will say whatever pops in his head that he thinks will reflect negatively on the president since no one is going to hold him accountable for his words.

He also stated, in words not restricted like those who don't have a zillion dollars of protection against slander... that those supporting President Bush are the ENEMY and the campaign would have been much uglier if he were running it.

Oh, yeah... he is also anti-semantic and thinks the Jews have much too much influence over presidential elections. And THESE are the people who the majority of Jewish Americans are voting for????

God help us! We need it.


I am sure I am not the only one chewing my fingernails down to the stubs and having ESS, Election Stress Syndrome!

Paul Johnson, a Brit, is as worried as I am about the disaster a Kerry win would mean for this country and this world. He asks:
"How seriously does the United States take its role as a world leader, and how far will it make sacrifices, and risk unpopularity, to discharge this duty with success and honor? In short, this is an election of the greatest significance, for Americans and all the rest of us. It will redefine what kind of a country the United States is, and how far the rest of the world can rely upon her to preserve the general safety and protect our civilization."
He has it right! He doesn't see Bush in the same light I do, but I can forgive him that since he didn't have the benefit of living under Bush as governor (and in my case of doing considerable research on his initiatives in job with a government watchdog group.) He sees a transformed Bush rather than the strength of character that I saw even when he was governor, long before our homeland was attacked so viciously.
"... he has been absolutely right in estimating the seriousness of the threat international terrorism poses to the entire world and on the need for the United States to meet this threat with all the means at its disposal and for as long as may be necessary. Equally, he has placed these considerations right at the center of his policies and continued to do so with total consistency, adamantine determination, and remarkable courage, despite sneers and jeers, ridicule and venomous opposition, and much unpopularity."
Johnson says "there is something grimly admirable" about the stoicism Bush faces in these hard times. It reminds him of the "dark winter" Washington faced that Thomas Paine described as "a time to try men's souls." Johnson also compares it to the difficulties faced by Lincoln and to the determination displayed by Wellington at Waterloo and obliquely to Winston Churchill.
"There is something grimly admirable about his stoicism in the face of reverses, which reminds me of other moments in history: the dark winter Washington faced in 1777-78, a time to “try men’s souls,” as Thomas Paine put it, and the long succession of military failures Lincoln had to bear and explain before he found a commander who could take the cause to victory. There is nothing glamorous about the Bush presidency and nothing exhilarating. It is all hard pounding, as Wellington said of Waterloo, adding: “Let us see who can pound the hardest.” Mastering terrorism fired by a religious fanaticism straight from the Dark Ages requires hard pounding of the dullest, most repetitious kind, in which spectacular victories are not to be looked for, and all we can expect are “blood, toil, tears, and sweat.”
He emphatically states that Bush "is the president America needs at this difficult time." He says this impression is "abundantly confirmed, indeed made overwhelming" when one looks at the alternative, Kerry. He affirms that all of Kerry's support both abroad and in America comes from an anti-Bush attitude rather than any support of Kerry. He then gives six reasons he believes that a Kerry presidency would be disastrous for America and the world.

ONE: Kerry's lack of convictions and beliefs. He says, rightly that " in a time of crisis, and on an issue involving the security of the world, what is needed is leadership. Kerry is abdicating that duty..."

TWO: Kerry’s personal character or rather... his lack thereof. Kerry changes his stands, his beliefs, and even his heritage (not Irish-Catholic as he has implied but Germanic-Jewish, which there is nothing wrong in that other than his attempts to hide it.) He has no core values or beliefs... everything he says and does is based upon expediency and vote gathering. There is nothing he has not been willing to be dishonest about if it served his purposes.

THREE: Kerry’s long record of contradictions and uncertainties as a senator and his apparent inability to pursue a consistent policy on major issues.

FOUR: His posturing over his military record, highlighted by his embarrassing pseudo-military salute when accepting the nomination (and numerous other times during his stumping.) I might also add Kerry's probable dishonorable discharge which is the most likely reason he refuses to release his military records combined with the known exaggerations and outright lies concerning his history and the pass the MSM has given him both on his military service record and his seditious if not treasonous activities when he returned from his incredibly short tour of duty.

FIVE: Kerry's so out-of-touch with reality lifestyle. Marrying a heiress of $300 million, getting an annulment then marrying a heiress of at least a billion along with the armies of lawyers that keep them from paying as much taxes as the "middle class" even though in MA you can elect to pay a higher income tax rate if you choose... which the Heinz-Kerry's don't choose to do.

SIX: You are known by the company you keep! Kerry chose as his running mate an ambulance chasing lawyer who personally done so much damage to his home state, the first time Senator would not have been re-elected and in general his ilk has done massive damage to this country and to the health care costs, that they try to blame on Bush. Add to that the ones that Kerry has described as the heart and soul of America... the Michael Moores, Whoopi Goldbergs and Cher's and other Hollywood, Rock idiots. Then consider the Billionaires for Kerry... most especially... George Soros... ask yourself WHY he wants Kerry.
"Of Kerry’s backers, maybe the most prominent is George Soros, a man who made his billions through the kind of unscrupulous manipulations that (in Marxist folklore) characterize “finance capitalism.” This is the man who did everything in his power to wreck the currency of Britain, America’s principal ally, during the EU exchange-rate crisis—not out of conviction but simply to make vast sums of money. He has also used his immense resources to interfere in the domestic affairs of half a dozen other countries, some of them small enough for serious meddling to be hard to resist. One has to ask: Why is a man like Soros so eager to see Kerry in the White House? The question is especially pertinent since he is not alone among the superrich wishing to see Bush beaten. There are several other huge fortunes backing Kerry. "
Johnson continues his analysis of why there is so much anti-Bushism going on both here and on the continent with this insight:
"Anti- Americanism has seldom been stronger in Continental Europe, and Bush
seems to personify in his simple, uncomplicated self all the things these people
most hate about America—precisely because he is so American. Anti-Americanism, like anti-Semitism, is not, of course, a rational reflex. It is, rather, a
mental disease, and the Continentals are currently suffering from a virulent spasm of the infection, as always happens when America exerts strong and unbending leadership."
He is saying what I've been shouting... because what I read between the lines is that ... the European countries, and indeed the liberal left here, want and demand a weak American leader. It is the strength and pure Americanism of President Bush that causes such intense hatred.
"Behind this second line of adversaries there is a far more sinister third. All the elements of anarchy and unrest in the Middle East and Muslim Asia and Africa are clamoring and praying for a Kerry victory. The mullahs and the imams, the gunmen and their arms suppliers and paymasters, all those who stand to profit politically, financially, and emotionally—from the total breakdown of order, the eclipse of democracy, and the defeat of the rule of law, want to see Bush replaced."
With the election of Kerry the streets of Europe and the middle east will fill with the cheers and celebration of the caliber that we saw when the Twin Towers fell. Those would that rejoice to see America weakened and defeated will be celebrating. I know, as apparently Paul Johnson knows... that such an event will be disastrous not only for America... but for the world.
"I cannot recall any election when the enemies of America all over the world have been so unanimous in hoping for the victory of one candidate. That is the overwhelming reason that John Kerry must be defeated, heavily and comprehensively."

Why is it that a Brit gets it right, when approximately half this country has it so wrong?


On Fox & Friends, Ed asks Wesley Clark what Kerry would do differently about the War on Terror. Clark (who was big supporter of the Bush, Gen. Franks led war until he became a candidate) said Kerry would go to the world community and ask for a definition on the War on Terror. YUP! that about sums Kerry up... that he is even IN this race is unfreakinbelievably AMAZING!


Jim Geraghty at Kerry Spot thinks it's time the left took a long look in the mirror.

"We’ve seen a truly unparalleled deluge of criticism of the president that well beyond policy differences. He is tarred as a war criminal, a fool, an idiot, a warmonger, a man who trades blood for oil, a mass murderer of innocent civilians, a stooge of sinister corporate interests, a puppet of Cheney, a terrorist himself, the anti-Christ, the second coming of Hitler, a slave to Ariel Sharon, an anti-Muslim hatemonger… and I’m sure I’ve left out plenty.

This rhetoric has been picked up by the British left, the European left, the Arab press, and anti-American interests around the globe. And — to my knowledge —not one Democrat, not one voice on the left has said, “Hey, we know you hate Bush, but stay out of it. He’s our president, leave the criticism of him to us.”

Instead of reacting to the London Guardian’s silly letter-writing campaign with laughter or dismissive criticism, the left embraced it. Why would anyone welcome a foreign power’s advice on how to vote? Next Spring, the British people will hold their election. Why should they listen to my advice or opinion on the choice between Tony Blair and Michael Howard?

The far left hates George W. Bush with a raging fury. So does al-Qaeda. Was it really so shocking that the rhetoric of the former would eventually be taken up by the latter?

No, this tape should cause many on the left to stare into the mirror for a long time and ask, “What have I turned into? How did I become so reflexively partisan, so blinded by rage, so intemperate in my rhetoric that my own arguments are being echoed by a man who planned and enjoyed the mass murder of Americans?”

“How the hell did I reach the point where I agree with Osama bin Laden on Bush?”
An earlier post looks at the comparison between the DNC talking points compared to OBL.


The NY Sun talks about the portions of bin Laden's tape that was NOT shown to the public, in which he complains about the setbacks (including the election in Afghanistan) and problems that had been caused by the war on terror being prosecuted by President George Bush.
"Officials said that in the 18-minute long tape — of which only six minutes were aired on the al-Jazeera Arab television network in the Middle East on Friday — bin Laden bemoans the recent democratic elections in Afghanistan and the lack of violence involved with it.

On the tape, bin Laden also says his terror organization has been hurt by the U.S. military's unrelenting manhunt for him and his cohorts on the Afghan-Pakistani border.

A portion of the left-out footage includes a tirade aimed at President Bush and his father, former President George H.W. Bush, claiming the war in Iraq is purely over oil."


USA Today is basically presenting dismal numbers for Bush and predicting a Kerry win...
"The findings suggest that Osama bin Laden's warning to Americans in a video broadcast Friday failed to provide the boost for Bush that some analysts predicted. That development and the disclosure last week that 377 tons of high explosives were missing from an Iraqi site U.S. troops failed to secure seemed to have damaged his standing."
Among my more dramatically dire declarations (as to what a Kerry win would mean to this country) one would certainly have to be a pronounced judgment upon the lack of character and intelligence of our voting public that inexpicably seems to prefer liars and cheats that have no character or backbone. Not an over-the-top assumption considering that they elected Clinton even knowing and admitting he was a bald-faced liar and now Kerry? In my estimation, even if Bush wins, it should never have been close.

The reasons given by USA Today that the numbers are trending toward Kerry are both based on blatant lies! 1. The Tora Bora Baloney and 2. The NON-missing explosives.

But the number 3 and main reason that Kerry is even in the race much less maybe winning is that the media has gone all out to support his election, by hook or crook. How powerful the MSM will feel, if yet again they manage to get their anointed candidate elected despite the overwhelming character deficiencies that should have rendered a Clinton or Kerry unelectable.

They will certainly be thumbing their nose at the Pajamahadeen ... and you can bet on it. Unless, of course Bush does get re-elected in which we will hear endless whining about how the blogsphere and ultrarich Bush Machine Dirty Politics affected the election chances of poor mistreated Kerry. I can hear the hypocritical hyperbole already.

I have to conclude that the Democrats love liars and cheats because they tell them the things that they have to hear in order to maintain their fantasy world where sin is not only accepted but good.

The MSM supports cheats and liars because of the challenge. They love pulling the wool over the eyes of Joe Blow Public and proving yet again how superior they are.


HEY! That's what we've been shouting! WordWarrior, a Vietnam vet himself, has been telling me for ages that there was something "hinky" about Kerry's discharge, according to the records posted on his site. Finally, someone has put the pieces together.

Check out the NY Sun article and World Net Daily for the nitty-gritty.


CAPTAIN'S QUARTERS has discovered that the transcript of Brokejaw's interview with Kerry in which he inadvertently admitted to not releasing his military records has been altered leaving out Kerry's admission.

Brokaw: Someone has analyzed the President's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do.

Kerry: That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it, because my record is not public. So I don't know where you're getting that from.

I posted earlier about this as quoted by Federalist Patriot but I also copied and saved the entire transript as originally posted.

Although Kerry and his camp has denied it repeatedly Kerry DID admit that he had not released his records...
Brokaw: "Someone has analyzed the President's military aptitude tests and yours and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do."

"That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it, because my record is not public. So I don't know where you're getting that from."
I asked Mr. Brokejaw WHY he didn't walk through that mile-wide opening Kerry had left for him and ask Mr. Kerry why he had NOT released his records. I guess that question has been answered quite plainly, so I now have a question for NBC...

WHY do you feel you have the obligation and right to cover for Kerry and try to help him get elected? Does that not make NBC the media branch of the DNC?

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