Beyond Fallujah

A roundup of the past two weeks' good news from Iraq.
BY ARTHUR CHRENKOFF
Monday, November 22, 2004 12:01 a.m.

In the fortnight that saw the massive assault by American and Iraqi troops on Fallujah, the flare-up of violence elsewhere in the Sunni Triangle and the murder of Margaret Hassan by her kidnappers, not to mention the controversy over a Marine shooting dead a wounded insurgent, it's hard to believe that anything positive might have also been happening in Iraq.
Yet neither Fallujah nor the Sunni Triangle is the whole of Iraq, just as violence and bloodshed are not the whole story of Iraq. Lt. Col. Victor Zillmer of Lindale, Texas, recently volunteered to return to Iraq as the commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Baghdad. His impressions of the country today seems to be shared by many in Iraq outside the media:
As I expected, it was not a total war zone with massive explosions and burning vehicles everywhere as commonly portrayed in the press. It was typical Baghdad, only the traffic was even worse. The economy must be doing much better over here, for the streets are jammed with cars of every description, with many of them newer and better condition than when I left in May. As compared to 18 months ago when I first arrived, the traffic has increased a hundredfold.


READ MORE:
A roundup of the past two weeks' good news from Iraq.
Mr. Chrenkoff is an Australian blogger. He writes at chrenkoff.blogspot.com.

And while you're reading the good news from Iraq .. and there is a lot of it .. Take the time to read this excellent column from Victor Davis Hanson. The war on terror has been a resounding success, and it is worth stopping and taking note of the score.

Read more!

More Proven Ties Between Iraq and al-Qaeda

What the 9/11 Commission says about Iraq and al Qaeda.
"Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq. If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "virtually impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared...National-security adviser Sandy Berger suggested that the U.S. send just one U-2 flight, but the report says Clarke worried that even then, Pakistan's intelligence service would warn bin Laden that the U.S. was preparing for a bombing campaign. "Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad," Clarke wrote in a February 11, 1999 e-mail to Berger. The report says that another National Security Council staffer also warned that "Saddam Hussein wanted bin Laden in Baghdad." (SEE MORE)


“Hudayfa Azzam, the son of bin Laden's longtime mentor Abdullah Azzam, told Agence France Presse that the Iraqi regime worked closely with al Qaeda in Iraq before the war. "Saddam Hussein's regime welcomed them with open arms and young al Qaeda members entered Iraq in large numbers, setting up an organization to confront the occupation," he said in an interview published 8/29/2004. Azzam added that al Qaeda fighters "infiltrated into Iraq with the help of Kurdish mujahideen from Afghanistan, across mountains in Iran" and that once they arrived, Saddam "strictly and directly" controlled their activities.” (SEE MORE)

"At the head of the group was a man by the name of Farouk Hijazi, President Saddam Hussein's new ambassador to Turkey and one of Iraq's most senior intelligence officers. He had been sent on one of the most important assignments of his career - to recruit Osama bin Laden." (SEE MORE)

"After Abdul Rahman Yasin returned to Baghdad, New Jersey FBI regularly brought Musab Yasin to its office to call his brother in Iraq. Abdul Rahman would always say that he would return to the US to answer the FBI's questions, only he had some business to finish up first. As Fox [New York City's FBI Chief Jim Fox] remarked, even after Abdul Rahman had successfully fled, he continued to fool some FBI agents. In August, Yasin was indicted, charged with helping to mix chemicals for the bomb [used in the first World Trade Center bombing]. In the spring of 1994, a Jordanian stringer working for ABC News spotted Abdul Rahman Yasin outside his father's house in Baghdad and learned from neighbors that he worked for the Iraqi government. After that news was broadcast, Iraqi authorities took Yasin and the other men in the house to an unknown location. His sixty-five-year-old mother, ill with cancer, was allowed to visit them, until she died in October 1994, in a hospital run by Iraqi security. As recently as May 1998, FBI director Louis Freeh affirmed that Yasin was in Iraq." (SEE MORE)

"A day later, Saddam told visiting Tunisian Foreign Minister Habib ben Yahya, "America brought the hatred of the world upon itself." For his part, Uday flat-out praised the 9/11 attacks, saying, "These were courageous operations carried out by young Arabs and Muslims," according to quotes picked up by the Saudi daily Asharq al-Awsat. (SEE MORE)

"On Aug 3, 1998, UNSCOM chairman Richard Butler arrived in Baghdad. The Iraqis demanded that he declare Iraq in compliance or leave immediately. Mr. Butler departed the next day. The following day, Aug. 5, Baghdad declared "suspension day"--that is, the suspension of weapons inspections. It restated its previous threats, affirming, "To those against whom war is made, permission is given to fight." Two days later, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed simultaneously." (SEE MORE)

"While in Baghdad, Abu Nidal, whose real name was Sabri al-Banna, came under pressure from Saddam to help train groups of al-Qa'eda fighters who moved to northern Iraq after fleeing Afghanistan. Saddam also wanted Abu Nidal to carry out attacks against the US and its allies.....There are al-Qa'eda in a number of locations in Iraq," he said. "In a vicious, repressive dictatorship that exercises near total control over its population, it's very hard to imagine that the government is not aware of what is taking place in the country." (SEE MORE)

"Iraq had been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terror for more than a decade...Saddam Hussein boasted openly about funding Palestinian suicide bombers. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, that panel member John Edwards approved, confirmed this state sponsorship. His regime gave safe haven to notorious terrorists Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal, and welcomed home Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who admitted on national television in the United States to mixing the chemicals for the first World Trade Center bombing. And the CIA assessed, again according to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, that Iraq had actually increased its terrorist plotting against the United States "throughout 2002."" (SEE MORE)

"The Philippine government expelled Hisham al Hussein, the second secretary at Iraq's Manila embassy, on February 13, 2003. Cell-phone records indicate that the diplomat had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, leaders of Abu Sayyaf, just before and just after this al Qaeda-allied Islamic militant group conducted an attack in Zamboanga City. Abu Sayyaf's nail-filled bomb exploded on October 2, 2002, injuring 23 individuals and killing two Filipinos and U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson, age 40." (SEE MORE)

Read more!

THE LIBERAL MEDIA IS AT IT AGAIN!!!

More Media Bias
by William James Epler

Well, as if our troops in Iraq didn't have enough to worry about, there is yet another threat to their safety and well-being. It is not enough that they face a determined enemy that has no honor and fights using innocent people as a shield and hides in Mosques. The brave warriors of the "religion of peace" and their Islamic Jihad run and hide, even dressing as women to avoid retribution at the hands of the noble and just American military fighting for peace, security, and a free Iraq. Aside from a threat of death or injury, there is the harsh desert conditions and separation from friends and family. Eating the same food everyday gets old too, trust me. Well now we have the same old media, and I am sick of it too. You know what, I do not care how much our media bashed the president during this past election. I can deal with that. However, to attack time and again the men and women fighting for our right to a free press, this I cannot stand. It sickens me to see the blatantly anti-American, anti-military media always siding with the terrorists. First it was the irresponsible reporting of the Abu-Ghraib scandal. The liberals in the media pounded that story to hurt Bush, but it hurt our military more. To characterize our nation's finest as criminals without any perspective was dishonest and unfair. The media continues to embolden our enemies by showing them that everytime our servicemen make a mistake, they will jump on the story. American media outlets are fighting the propaganda war for the enemy, and it looks like they are winning. Abu-Ghraib was an isolated breakdown of military procedure and ethics, one that has long since been rectified. The media, however, in their ongoing attempts to undermine our military and president kept running with it. Then there was the Al-QaaQa weapons facility. Supposedly, 380 tons of high explosives were missing. This again was a media attempt to hurt Bush, and again it only hurt our military by calling them incompetent. It is also suspiciously lacking perspective when you look at the fact that hundreds of millions of tons of weapons and explosives were destroyed or captured by our forces making the 380 tons almost irrelevant. We learn later that this facility was cleared out before our invasion and anything left was destroyed by 3rd Infantry Division Engineers. There is no level too low that our nation's elite media will not sink to in order to further their political agenda. Now it is in Fallujah and our troops fought extremely well, seizing the city far faster than anyone thought was possible. We suffered minimal casualties, although I believe one death is too many, while 1,200 terrorists were sent to visit Allah and take a desert dirt nap. This is bloody, hard, stressful combat. Non-stop, kill or be killed fighting. Terrorists that will kill a thousand innocent Iraqis just to kill one Marine against a fighting force that time and again have sacrificed American lives to prevent innocent Iraqis from dying. The enemy hides in Mosques, hospitals, among civilians, and use innocents as human shields. They booby trap their dead and wounded and use them in ambushes. Injured terrorists play dead only to try and jump up and surprise attack American troops. This is what they are up against. Now, enter a Marine who had been fighting for 24 hours straight. He was wounded the day prior, shot in the face during a fire fight. His platoon is clearing a room. Knowing the tactics employed by the enemy in recent days, he is very cautious when approaching apparently dead or wounded enemy combatants lying on the floor. One of the bodies he sees makes a move. Now he has a choice to make. He can take the chance that it is simply a wounded enemy writhing in pain and hope he is not armed, and hope he does not detonate a bomb or shoot and kill him or his buddies. Or, he can shoot first possibly saving his life, his comrade's lives, and the life of some snot-nosed reporter tagging along to get some footage for his masters back in the US. This occurred a few days ago. Without any perspective or journalistic integrity at all, the liberal news media jumped all over this story. Let the anti-American propaganda begin! Instantly talking heads began quoting the Geneva Conventions and condemned this Marine as a murderer. Meanwhile national and international media outlets are labeling the enemy we are fighting as "insurgents" or even "freedom fighters". Again, just like at Abu-Ghraib, the liberal media attacks our military and sides with the enemy. If we had our media of today back in the 1940's, we would all either be speaking German, Japanese, or we would all be lamp shades. The investigation had not even started and CNN, CBS, and the others were already claiming war crimes had been committed. This is the same media that let John Kerry get through an election campaign without answering one question about the war crimes he admitted to committing in Vietnam. I will not condemn nor exonerate this man until an investigation has been completed. The liberal media should try doing the same. One last thing.... The enemy in Iraq is not covered under the Geneva Conventions. These terrorists should not be afforded rights and protection under the Geneva Conventions unless they adopt a military uniform. The Conventions applies only to the uniformed armies of a state, and terrorists do not meet this criteria. In no way do I advocate the inhumane treatment of enemy prisoners or the indiscriminate killing or destruction of non-military people and objects. However, when terrorists use a Mosque to launch attacks it is no longer protected. These terrorists are thugs, murderers, and are evil. They kill innocents, behead helpless hostages, and only seek death and destruction. You cannot reason with these monsters, and they will not play by our rules. They must be destroyed. It is not pretty. War is always ugly and it is truly Hell on Earth. It is made all the more difficult when our national elite media insists on siding with our enemies. When you undermine our war effort by manipulating public opinion and destroying support for our troops, you give hope to an enemy that has no reason to have hope. When this happens, they are urged to fight a little longer and a little harder and that is getting American boys killed. Think long and hard before tuning into CNN, CBS, or reading the NY Times. These news organizations long ago sold their honor and journalistic soul in order to further their own cause, whatever their twisted ends may be. Remember, whether you support our politicians or not, always support our troops. To get them home soon we must win a war of perception at home, so the anti-military leftists in the media must be defeated if we are to defeat the terrorists. God Bless America, and God Bless the brave men and women willing to fight for and protect us.

Read more!

Sudanese Boy "Crucified"

From Jonathan Garthwaite THeditor@townhall.com and The Voice of the Martyrs

Damare, a small Sudanese boy was taken as a slave and forced to tend camels after his village was attacked by radical Muslims. One day Damare, who had been raised in a Christian home, snuck away from his master to attend a church service. When he returned, his Muslim master was waiting for him and accused of committing a deadly act, "meeting with infidels." The master then dragged Damare into a field where he nailed his feet and knees into a large board while the boy cried out in agony.
Damare was miraculously rescued and has told The Voice of the Martyrs that just as Jesus was nailed and forgave, he forgives also. What bold faith from a simple Sudanese boy!
If you want to know what's really going on in over 40 countries where Christians are facing persecution, subscribe to The Voice of the Martyrs FREE monthly newsletter. This award-winning newsletter is sure to inspire and challenge like no other. Click here to subscribe now

Update
The boy in the article above, Damare, has now received some assistance from workers with The Voice of the Martyrs. His wounds are still open and additional medical attention as well as some rehabilitation is still needed. (VOM is looking into further assistance.)
Damare is not alone in the persecution he has endured. The Muslim government of Khartoum in the North has declared a jihad, or holy war, against the mostly Christian South. Omar Hassan al-Turabi, an Islamic leader, has stated that anyone who opposes Islam “has no future.” Since 1985, approximately two million have perished due to the genocide. Families in the South are terrorized-fathers killed, mothers raped, and children sold into slavery. Yet in the midst of these atrocities, the Christians in Sudan remain strong, worshipping their Savior and leading others to Him. Thankfully, in recent months the onslaughts have begun to subside and peace talks are on the table.
For nearly 10 years, The Voice of the Martyrs has been active in Sudan, delivering Bibles, medical supplies, and refugee kits. The Voice of the Martyrs developed a “Blankets of Love” campaign allowing families in the USA to send good used blankets to families in south Sudan. Since the program initiated, nearly 250,000 have been delivered.
Want to stay informed?
If you are not currently receiving The Voice of the Martyrs monthly newsletter, you may request a free subscription. Each month you will learn about Christians like Damare in over 40 restricted nations who stand strong in the face of persecution and often inspire our own faith. You will also learn practical ways you can get involved. Click here for your FREE subscription to The Voice of the Martyrs monthly newsletter.

Read more!

Dan Rather Delivers Powerful Tribute to Marines in Iraq No matter how obnoxious of a conservative-bashing liberal crusader Dan Rather is much of the time, when he returns to his patriotic Texas roots, he does so powerfully -- as he did Wednesday night in concluding the CBS Evening News with an emotional tribute to U.S. Marines. With a photo on screen of a grizzled Marine in Fallujah, Rather urged viewers: "Study it, absorb it, think about it. Then take a deep breath of pride. And if your eyes don't dampen, you're a better man or woman than I. Where such men come from and what will happen to our country when they cease to come, we can wonder with worry. But for now, we have them, and they are there in that brown hell known as Iraq. Whatever you may think of the war, they went for the right reason: They loved their country."

Read more!

Editorial by Oliver North

Oliver North: The New Veterans

Washington, D.C. - On Thursday, the calendar reminded us that it was Veterans Day. But few Americans paused to honor those who have served in our Armed Forces. Ceremonies were held at veteran's cemeteries, but there were few parades. The veteran's hospital I called on this week didn't record any perceptible increase in visitors. Perhaps that's because so few of us know much about the history of the wars we have had to fight to stay free.

When I speak to high school or college students, steeped in a culture of instant gratification, most are surprised to learn that America's wars have usually been long, bloody affairs - not quick victories. Few of them know, for example, that for the first six months of World War II, America lost every significant engagement; that it was not until Midway in June, 1942, that we won our first major battle. Nor are they aware that it wasn't until August, nine months after Pearl Harbor, with the Marine landings on Guadalcanal, that we were finally able to go on the offensive.

During that terrible time, when victory was anything but certain, Americans learned about wartime events on the radio, in hometown newspapers and through "newsreels" at local theaters. But now, thanks to tiny video cameras, lightweight global television uplinks and satellite phones, Americans watch wars as they happen - like an NFL game - play by play.

Today, war is broadcast into our homes with "color commentary" by Armchair Admirals and Broadcast Brigadiers. Many of these Sound-Bite Special Forces critique the commanders in the field and the troops on the ground as they purport to analyze major plays and minor skirmishes. Chester Nimitz, Archer Vandegrift and Dwight Eisenhower were fortunate to have fought their war without the "benefit" of such help.

Unfortunately, today's adversaries avail themselves of this "coverage" - and frequently use the medium against us. This week, U.S. troops in Fallujah found televisions and satellite dishes tuned to a U.S. cable news network and computers linked to the web pages of American newspapers. In the slaughterhouses where kidnap victims were tortured and beheaded, video cameras, tapes and DVDs of the atrocities were confiscated. The Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade - a creation of the much mourned Yassir Arafat - perfected the art of videotaping suicide terrorists. And in Iraq, IEDs are emplaced with cameras pointed at them so that Al Jazeera can broadcast their deadly detonations and exhort others to Jihad.

Interestingly, now that U.S. and Iraqi government forces are in the terrorists' lair and the radicals are on the run, Al Jazeera has been reduced to pirating American TV images. Apparently the terrorists that the Al Jazeera cameramen have been living among don't want to be videotaped dressed in women's clothing while they flee like cowards from allied troops.

That's not all that the so-called Arab press isn't covering. The same outlets that gleefully showed Musab al-Zarqawi's thugs firing AK-47s, RPGs and mortars at U.S. and Iraqi troops, somehow missed Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi - not an American - ordering the restoration of law and order in Fallujah. Hardly mentioned was his appeal for dialogue before the operation or the Iraqi government's humanitarian call for civilians to vacate the city before military action commenced.


Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya and the other major mid-east outlets have all but ignored the success of the Iraqi forces engaged in this operation. Miles of combat footage has aired showing U.S. Marines and soldiers, their LAVs, AAVs, M-1 tanks, Armored Humvees, Strykers, and Bradley fighting vehicles - but scant coverage has been given to the nearly 4,000 Iraqi National Guardsmen fighting beside 11,000 Americans.

Prior to the operation, interim Iraqi Defense Minister Hazim Shalan told his soldiers, "Your conscience and families call for you. They call for you to liberate this city." A 28-year-old Iraqi National Guardsman said, "We are here to defend our country. The world looks down on Iraq now because of the terrorists who are not Iraqi. We will make them see Iraqi men ending the terrorism." And that's what they are doing, though few in the Arab world are seeing it.

One of the first objectives inside Fallujah was the city hospital - a terrorist strong-point. It was quickly captured by U.S. and Iraqi Special Forces. As soon as it was secured, American and Iraqi doctors and nurses re-opened it to treat the civilian population. The two major bridges spanning the Euphrates were taken undamaged, opening supply routes for food and medicine into the city. When fire was received from the green-domed Muhammadia Mosque that the terrorists were using as a command center, Iraqi troops occupied it.

Instead of giving these events the coverage they deserved - and the Iraqi troops the credit they earned, the international media laments the "unilateral action" by U.S. troops and a "needless loss of innocent life." Rather than praise the Iraqis for fighting back against the terrorist menace that threatens their homeland, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan chose to issue a statement warning that, "The use of force could destabilize the country at a critical point in the preparation for elections."

Hogwash. Without this intervention it would be impossible to hold elections in January. Fallujah is the beginning of the end for those bent on subverting democracy in Iraq. The slaughterhouses where kidnappers filmed hostage beheadings are closed. The bomb factories are out of business. The terrorists are on the run.

Once again, American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines - a new generation of veterans - have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with a brave ally to offer others the hope of freedom. Whether the mainstream U.S. media, the international press or the U.N. acknowledge it or not, the people of Iraq now have a government of, by and for the people within their grasp.

Read more!

HONOR ALL VETERANS TODAY AND ALWAYS

Honor Our Veterans and All Those Still Serving Today. Pray for Our Troops Who are , at this very moment, fighting and bleeding to keep you safe.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.
For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

-Sen. Zell Miller(D), GA

Read more!

Analysis of the Democrat's Defeat

Why the Democrats Failed
By William James Epler

This past election was a crushing defeat for the Democratic Party. Along with losing the presidential election, the Democrats gave up an even larger majority in the House and Senate to the Republicans. Now instead of trying to understand why they failed, you will see the Dems and their friends in the liberal media place blame on all those “damn right-wing Christian Evangelicals” who flocked to the polls to vote for President Bush and, in 11 states, to ban gay marriage. They refuse to accept the fact that they are not the majority party any longer. They have been pulled so far left out of mainstream America, that even moderate Democrats are wondering where their party has gone. The once proud Democratic Party is now a party of protest with a secular agenda. The Democrat’s allies in the liberal media and in such left-wing organizations as the ACLU have, for at least the last decade, done nothing but bash and belittle religious people-specifically those who believe in Judeo-Christian values. This has alienated most Americans away from the Democratic Party. Almost 86% of Americans believe that there is a God and practice one form of religion or another. The mistake that has become a thorn in the Dem’s side is allowing themselves to be separated from traditional values and appear to be anti-religion. The Democrats have been hijacked by the far-left. It is now the party of Michael Moore, Al Franken, the ACLU, and other liberal bomb-throwers.
When will they learn that no ultra-liberal candidate, especially a Senator from Massachusetts, will ever be president? The last two Democrats to win the presidency were from the South and ran as moderates. If the Dem’s want to salvage their party they need to realize their mistakes. Joe Lieberman was the only Democrat that could have defeated George W. Bush, but he could not even win his party’s nomination through the primaries. There is a reason that Zell Miller and others broke ranks to support President Bush. There is no place for diverse, individual thought in the Democratic Party. Conservative Democrats are being driven away and any politician that does not toe the party line has no chance in the national scene, as they are stricken with attacks by their Democratic comrades that preach tolerance and free speech until they disagree with you.
Lets look at their candidate for president as a case study in why the Democrats are in decline. John Kerry has been a Senator for 20 years, and accomplished nothing. He did not even try to defend his Senate record because he knew he had no significant achievements. You can look at it every which way, he did nothing. He decided to run on his four month tour in Vietnam. Big mistake. The phony war hero was exposed by his brothers-in-arms, the men who served with him. I will give him his military service, questionable though it be, and just say he served with honor and I won’t take it away. Now, that said, lets look at his actions following his tour in ‘Nam. He came home and immediately seized every political opportunity. The war was unpopular and he immediately jumped onto the anti-war bandwagon. After co-founding the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and throwing his hat in with the likes of ‘Hanoi’ Jane Fonda, he gave testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It was there he betrayed all Vietnam Veterans by accusing every single one of them of atrocities. He called them murders, rapists, and compared them to Genghis Khan. He made it seem as if dishonorable behavior was the rule of our military during the Vietnam War. Atrocities did happen, as in all war, but it was an exception. The vast majority of servicemen in ‘Nam served honorably. Kerry claimed to have witnessed and committed war crimes. This brings up two questions in my mind. First, why did he not stop or report these atrocities. While in Iraq as a noncommissioned officer, it would be my responsibility to report illegal actions no matter who was committing or authorizing them. Second, if Kerry said he committed atrocities, he is a war criminal and should be prosecuted. If not then he is a liar and committed perjury during his Senate testimony. The likes of Kerry and ’Hanoi’ Jane Fonda are responsible for increasing and prolonging the suffering of American POW’s. Several veterans came forward to recount their tales of torture in which Kerry’s testimony was used against them. The anti-war movement defeated us and extended the war by at least two years. The commander of all North Vietnamese forces, General Giap, admitted in the early’80s in his book that the anti-war protestors emboldened the communists. Giap admits that the Tet Offensive was a massive defeat, and intended to seek conditional cessation of hostilities if not for the protestors in America.
Then, of course, you have Kerry meeting with the enemy in Paris while troops were still fighting in Vietnam. Last time I checked actions such as this amounted to treason. So, the Democrats chose as their candidate for president an ultra-liberal from Massachusetts that portrayed himself as a war hero, but protested the same war and undermined our efforts in that war. You see the problem there don’t you? What did Kerry stand for? Well basically he wanted to surrender American sovereignty to the United Nations, arguably the most corrupt and irrelevant organization in human history. He believed in military action only with UN approval. He said it was okay for soldiers to die for the UN but not for the US. He attacked our troops in Vietnam. He voted against all defense bills as a Senator. He wanted to gut intelligence spending, even after the WTC was bombed in 1993. He continues to this day, perhaps out of instinct, to berate our troops. The phony Al-Qaqaa weapons story was used by his campaign to attack the President. Actually, however, it was an attack on our troops saying they were incompetent and failed to do their job.
How was this election this close? You have this anti-military, anti-American candidate named John Kerry and a party full of protestors and fanatics. Kerry and his thugs wanted to do everything normal Americans hate. They promised to raise taxes, take a weak approach to national defense, and force a liberal value system on America. The reason the comedy of errors called the Kerry Candidacy was able to keep within striking distance was the liberal media. It has been said that if you control a nation’s media, you control the people. That is true to some extent. CNN, CBS, The NY Times, and others were openly rooting for the Democrats. CBS tried to use forged documents to destroy the president (which is an old Soviet tactic to destroy political enemies). Then the Times and CBS tried running the phony missing weapons story to hurt the president right before the election. They all pounded the Abu-Ghraib prison scandal long after there was nothing left to report. These people politicized everything and tried to turn every story against the president, against the military, and against Conservative Americans. Then of course you have a clown named Michael Moore. This vacuous blob made a “documentary” called Fahrenheit 9-11. In this snuff film he makes several outrageous claims and offers no proof, only innuendo. Largely discredited, this film is still a favorite among liberal nut balls and their brain dead followers. All of this together, along with a notoriously ignorant electorate, had me quite pessimistic about this election. Now, I am not a huge fan of the Republicans or George W. Bush, but I know what is right and what is wrong for my family and the future of this country. I did not vote for Bush last election, but both my wife and myself voted for him this election.
My prediction for the election was ominous. I knew it would all hinge on voter turnout. I knew it would be a record turnout, and I knew the left was great at herding large flocks of mindless sheep to the polls. So I thought ‘Hanoi’ John Kerry would win. With the Bush-bashing media, Democratic voter fraud, and terrorists everywhere pulling for Kerry I did not have much faith in the American voter. Election night proved me and most other pundits wrong. While the exit polls looked bad, I knew better than to trust them. There were several factors that the media and myself did not take into account.
1. New Media- the internet bloggers, talk radio, Fox News, and others refused to follow the Democrat allied liberal media and exposed the failures and bias of the elite networks.
2. The Swift Boat Veterans and POW’s for truth. These honorable veterans earned the right to be heard and even though the media tried to ignore them, they would not go away.
3. The youth vote did not materialize. Michael Moore’s “Get out the stoned slacker vote” campaign failed. Why didn’t they go to the polls? Because, they are a bunch of stoned slackers!
4. Moral issues on the ballot did have an effect in Ohio, and never before have so many Conservatives voted.
5.Apparently we are not like the Spanish people who chose to appease terrorists by voting in the Socialists and running like cowards from the War on Terror. Bush’s efforts to defeat terrorism had the greatest impact. I guess some people did remember 9-11.
6. Quite simply, Kerry was a horrible candidate. He was anti-military at a time when we needed strong support for our troops. He alienated moderate Americans, people did not like him and people did like Bush. Liberalism fails at the polls, the people reject it.
7. Theresa Heinz-Kerry. Need I say more?
My faith in the American people has been restored. The defeat of John Fonda Kerry was perhaps the greatest gift the people of this nation could’ve given to the veterans, especially of Vietnam, for Veteran’s Day. There was a good reason the military supported Bush 4 to 1 over Kerry. We dodged a potentially dangerous bullet. Now that we have a strong leader not worried about reelection, maybe the real work can finally begin. As a veteran of Iraqi Freedom, I am anxious for the elections there in January and hopeful for the future of Iraq. Once again, thank you America for rejecting the destructive liberal agenda of the modern Democratic Party. To those Dems out there, reclaim your party. If Michael Moore and liberal fanatics continue to hijack your party, you will be swept into the dust bin of history. We could use FDR, Truman, or Kennedy right now. Too bad for you though, they would probably be Republicans if they were alive today.

Read more!

Column by Senator Zell Miller(D)Georgia

I tried to tell you . . .Democrats repel voters, who put faith in freedom
Published on: 11/04/04

America's faith in freedom has been reaffirmed. With the re-election of President Bush, America recommitted itself once again to expanding freedom and promoting liberty. Only the 1864 re-election of Abraham Lincoln, the 1944 re-election of Franklin Roosevelt and the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan rival this victory as milestones in the preservation of our security by the advancement of freedom.
This election validated not just freedom, but also the faith our Founding Fathers placed in average folks to navigate the course of this great nation. By weighing the greatest issues at the gravest times and choosing our path, ordinary people have again accomplished extraordinary things. With courage and caution, rather than fear and timidity, the voters chose a path to ensure others would enjoy the same freedom to set their own path.
This election outcome should have been implausible, if not impossible. With a litany of complaints — bad economy, bad deficit, bad foreign war, bad gas prices — amplified by a national media that discarded any pretense of neutrality, a national opposition party should have won this election.
But the Democratic Party is no longer a national party. As difficult as the challenges are — both real and fabricated — Democrats offered no solution that was either believable or acceptable to vast regions of America. Tax increases to grow the economy are not a solution that is believable or acceptable. Democratic promises of fiscal responsibility are unbelievable in the face of massive new spending promises. A foreign policy based on the strength of "allies" such as France is unacceptable. A strong national defense policy is just not believable coming from a candidate who built a career as an anti-war veteran, an anti-military candidate and an anti-action senator.
Democratic Party policies haven't sold in large sections of America in decades, and the only success of Democrats in presidential elections for 40 years was when they pitched themselves as pro-growth, low-tax, strong-defense, fiscally responsible, values-oriented candidates. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton hummed the tune but never really sang the song, and that's why Democrat prospects have gone south in the South. In 1980, the South had 20 Democrats and just six Republicans in the Senate. As recently as 1994, the Senate had 17 Democrats and nine Republicans from the South.
A decade later, the number had reversed to 17 Republicans and nine Democrats. With this election, it is 22 Republicans and just four Democrats from the South. When will national Democrats sober up and admit that that dog won't hunt? Secular socialism, heavy taxes, big spending, weak defense, limitless lawsuits and heavy regulation — that pack of beagles hasn't caught a rabbit in the South or Midwest in years. The most recent failed nominee for president stands as proof that the national Democratic Party will continue to dwindle. The South has gone from just one-fourth of the Electoral College in 1960 to almost a third today. To put this in perspective, that gain is equal to all the electoral votes in Ohio. Yet there was not a single Southern state where John Kerry had any real chance. Would anyone like to place bets on the electoral strength of the South by 2012? Maybe they should tax stupidity. When you write off centrist and conservative policies that reflect the will of people in the South and Midwest, you write off the South and Midwest. Democrats have never learned from the second or third or fifth kick of a mule. They continue to change only the makeup on, rather than makeup of, the Democrat Party.
And so we have a realignment election. For the first time, in an "us vs. them" election and in the toughest of situations, Republicans have been re-elected to the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Confronting an opposition that can win a divided electorate in the worst of times and that has a growing electoral base, the national Democratic Party has a choice: continue down this path toward irrelevance or reverse course. As the last Truman Democrat, I hope my party makes the right choice but know I will not be allowed to be part of it. Such is the price you pay when you love your nation more than your party.
And so while I retire with little hope for the near-term viability of the party I've spent my life building, I retire with a quiet satisfaction that after witnessing the struggle of democracy over communism and fascism, the fear I once held that America might not rise to meet this new challenge of terrorism has vanished like a fog under the radiance of a new dawn. While the threat is still real, the shadow looming across a promising future is gone.
And the credit for that goes to one man. Like the last lion of England, Winston Churchill, George W. Bush has stood alone and risked all to give the world a new, clearer path to the advancement of freedom.
Abraham Lincoln, in his second annual message to Congress, stated: "In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom for the free — honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth."
George Bush has injected into a region of enslavement an incurable dose of freedom, and thus nobly saved that "last, best hope of earth" — free men.

— Zell Miller is Georgia's Democratic U.S. senator.

Read more!

Iranians Want Democracy

'Millions' of Iranians Celebrate Bush Victory
From www.newsmax.com

On the streets and in the gathering places of Iran, millions celebrated the re-election of President Bush with congratulations and discreet V for victory signs to each other.
The Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran (SMCCDI) Web site reports that not just a few, but millions of Iranians hoping for reform in that country are excited about President Bush and his promises of democracy for the whole region.
However, SMCCDI reports, "As Iranians and especially the younger generations have become happy, those affiliated to the Islamic regime are seen deeply worried about their future."
It says the ruling regime in Iran, and all of its lobbyists and apologists, spent piles of money hoping for a Bush defeat.
They even organized a celebration in Tehran of the day the American hostages were taken in Iran in 1979, but could only manage a "few thousand professional protesters" from a city of 12 million inhabitants.
The site reports that "commemoration of one of the main Islamist act [sic] of terror encountered another massive popular rejection."

For more information about The Student Movement Coordination Committee, or to contribute, visit http://www.daneshjoo.org/
You may also view here Iranian dissidents condemning the terrorist attack of 9-11.

Read more!

Editorial by Oliver North

Oliver North: Opportunities Ahead
November 4, 2004

Washington, D.C. - The American people spoke loud and clear on Tuesday and the so-called mainstream media still haven't heard them. With nearly 60 million, President Bush received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history. It is a clear mandate for a popular president to continue defending this country from terrorist enemies; strengthen our intelligence operations; continue the progress in Iraq and Afghanistan; reduce the tax burden on families and small businesses; reform Social Security; and establish public policies that reflect the moral virtues which value human life and the sanctity of marriage. Although nearly 60 percent of registered voters cast their ballots on Tuesday, the Kerry team hoped for a higher turnout. With help from their Hollywood friends, they worked hard to energize young voters and college students who they hoped would be the "800-pound gorilla" voting bloc of this election. The Kerry team repeated their lie day in and day out that under a second Bush term, a military draft was imminent and the only way for students to legally dodge the draft was to vote for John Kerry. That would do it, Kerry thought. The way to win this election was to turn John Kennedy's admonition on its head and appeal to the weak and cowardly, who ask only what their country can do for them. But the students didn't turn out. Instead, millions of Americans braved rain, snow and blazing sun to vote for their commander in chief, wanting their voice to counter Kerry's appeal to craven pessimists. In some precincts, voters waited for hours. Pundits who provided us with Election Day analysis believed these long lines, coupled with fatally flawed exit polls, would redound to the benefit of John Kerry - the anti-war candidate who would sound the call for retreat. But the Americans who waited in line to cast their votes are the quiet patriots who live in small towns and rural communities in the so-called "Red States." For them, standing in line is not the burden the elite media, who prize instant gratification, make it out to be. After all, these are the people who stand in line at Wal Marts for hunting and fishing licenses. They stand in line on Sundays at church to shake hands with the minister or receive communion. And these are the same people who formed long lines in mid September 2001 to give blood, donate time and energy, sift through rubble, put out fires, distribute Bibles and blankets and pour coffee. The people who formed those long lines at the polling places on Tuesday are the friends, family and neighbors of those young people who formed lines in 2001 out the doors of the Army and Marine Corps recruiting offices. On Tuesday, these quiet patriots came to the defense of their commander in chief; they came out to support the troops by casting a vote for the man in whom the troops put their faith. And so now President Bush will take his 58-million-vote mandate - more than any candidate for president has ever received - and begin to work on the opportunities that lie ahead. "I've earned capital in this election and I'm going to spend it," the President said at his first post-election news conference on Thursday. The President will use that capital to continue to work toward peace and stability in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East. While Mr. Bush was preparing for his second term in Washington, U.S. forces in Iraq were preparing for an offensive in Fallujah to kill or capture the remaining terrorists in that city and to provide stability in anticipation of the national elections early next year. With Palestinian terrorist Yassir Arafat near death, a new opportunity exists in the Middle East to bring peace to the region. President Bush said he will "continue to work for a free Palestinian state that's at peace with Israel." Mr. Bush also has numerous opportunities at home. Conventional wisdom holds that during the next four years as many as three seats could open on the Supreme Court. During his first term, Democrats waged an aggressive, obstructionist campaign against the President's judicial nominees. If they are serious about their desire to create a bipartisan spirit of cooperation in Washington, Democrats will have to welcome jurists who value human life, the sanctity of marriage and our Judeo-Christian heritage. Tax relief and simplification of the tax code are high on the President's agenda and much needed improvements. Reform of the Social Security system is an issue which no politician has had the courage to undertake in a serious way. Mr. Bush is about to embark on an historic effort to improve our retirement system and will need the cooperation of Democrats who, even in this latest campaign, tried to use it as a scare tactic and a wedge issue. The people have spoken, they've given our President a mandate and he is ready to go to work on their behalf. The only question that remains is, have the Democrats learned their lesson, and are they ready to help President Bush, or will they simply appoint new obstructionists to replace the old ones like Tom Daschle and Terry McAuliffe?

For more military news and opinions, visit www.military.com

Read more!

Osama is a Micheal Moore Fan

A 'FAHRENHEIT 9/11' FAN
BY JOHN PODHORETZ

October 30, 2004 -- CONGRATULATIONS, Michael Moore — America's worst enemy and one of the world's most evil men is a big fan of yours.
The most startling moment on the Osama bin Laden videotape shown yesterday was his description of the morning of 9/11, which is certainly derived — albeit in garbled form — from a viewing of Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."
"It never occurred to us that he, the commander in chief of the country, would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone, because he thought listening to a child discussing her goats was more important," bin Laden said.
Just think. If the reprehensible Moore wins an Oscar for his disgusting piece of propaganda, Hollywood will be seconding the favorable opinion of Osama bin Laden.
I want to caution my friends on the Right about claiming that the Osama tape somehow is an endorsement of John Kerry. No doubt bin Laden would like to claim credit for changing the American president. Thankfully, the American people know better than to believe bin Laden will somehow go easier on us if John Kerry wins on Tuesday.
They know this monster attacked America when Bill Clinton was president and that he and his minions will continue to plot the mass murder of Americans no matter who is in the White House.
But something does jump out at you when you consider the message bin Laden was delivering to the United States. It was remarkably defensive, with bin Laden offering some kind of bizarre truce to the American people: "To the U.S. people," he said, "my talk is to you about the best way to avoid another disaster."
How thoughtful of him.
He told us that neither Bush nor Kerry could protect America: "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda," he said. "Your security is in your own hands."
In other words, if the American people would somehow agree to consider the security needs of bin Laden and his followers (whether that means just al Qaeda or the entire Arab and Muslim world isn't clear), we'd be safe.
"Do not play with our security, and spontaneously you will secure yourself," he said.
This is, I think, a profound rhetorical change from the man who vowed in 2002 that "the United States will not survive, will not feel any safety or any security."
Usually, bin Laden and his people tend to use the most purple and terrifying language about the damage they're going to do to the United States, as we saw earlier in the week when the American al Qaeda follower "Azzam" said on his videotape that "the streets of America will run red with blood."
Now bin Laden is talking truce.
What's changed, perhaps, is the ferocity of the American response to 9/11. Since then, Osama has been on the run, his Afghanistan safe haven destroyed, his movement under relentless financial and military assault. By offering America a deal, no matter how twisted and pointless the deal might be, the quality that he might be showing us isn't strength, but weakness.
Maybe he's feeling the weariness suggested in the videotaped statement last month by his No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri: "Oh young men of Islam," he said, "if we are killed or captured, you should carry on the fight." Maybe they're buckling.

Read more!

Kerry Lacks Character

A Question of Character
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist October 31, 2004

IF YOU were to choose just one vignette to illustrate John Kerry's worst character flaw as a public official -- his lack of political courage -- what would it be?
You might pick the speech on "Race, Politics, and the Urban Agenda" that Kerry gave at Yale in 1992 -- the first, he said, of a series on race and urban issues. His speech drew attention because of its mild criticism of affirmative action, which had led, in his words, to "a reality of reverse discrimination that actually engenders racism." For uttering the obvious, Kerry was instantly condemned on the left. One Boston paper accused him of having "embraced tactics that . . . widen the country's racial divide." Because of him, a journalist wrote, blacks felt "stabbed in the back."
Kerry could have stuck to his guns. But he backed down. He delivered no more speeches on the subject and has obediently endorsed affirmative action ever since.
Another episode involved the questionnaire Kerry answered during his first Senate race in 1984. The questions came from Freeze Voter '84, an antidefense group whose endorsement Kerry sought in the Democratic primary. To get it, he said he would vote to cancel a host of weapons systems: the B-1 and Stealth bombers, cruise and Pershing missiles, many others. He excepted only the Trident submarine, whose development he supported. Then he was told that if he stood by the Trident, the endorsement would go to his main opponent, who had come out against all the weapons on the questionnaire.
So Kerry changed his answer. He agreed to oppose whatever Freeze Voter '84 opposed -- including the Trident. The group got the answers it wanted, and Kerry got the endorsement he craved.
But my choice for most telling vignette would be the one about the Gulf War letters.
On Jan. 9, 1991, as the crisis over Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was building to a climax, Kerry received a letter from a constituent, Walter Carter of Newton.
"Dear Senator Kerry," it began. "I urge you to support President Bush's request that Congress approve the `use of all necessary means' to get Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. To deny the president's request would encourage further aggression."
On Jan. 22, Kerry replied.
"Dear Mr. Carter," he wrote. "Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to the Bush administration's additional deployment of US military forces . . . and to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On Jan. 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president immediate authority to go to war."
Nine days later, he replied again.
"Dear Mr. Carter," Kerry's second letter said. "Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush. . . . From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and . . . our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."
As his glaringly inconsistent responses to Carter -- both form letters, of course -- make clear, Kerry's habit of coming down firmly on two side of controversial issues didn't begin with his presidential campaign. It has been a hallmark of his political career.
If voters have learned anything about Kerry by now, it is that time and again he will unhesitatingly say "flip," only to subsequently say "flop." The war in Iraq, executing terrorists, stiffer sanctions on Cuba, free trade agreements, pre-emption, defense-of-marriage laws, Israel's security fence, the Grenada invasion, the Patriot Act, reducing troop levels in Korea -- on all of these and more, Kerry has taken contradictory positions, often abandoning a politically difficult stand for one more convenient or popular.
Did he throw away his medals in 1971? First he said yes, then he said no. Should taxes on dividends be reduced? First he said yes, then he said no. Is the war on terrorism basically a "manhunt?" Yes, no. Does own an SUV? Yes, no.
All thinking people change their minds occasionally. But it is one thing to alter an opinion because of new information or further reflection. It is something very different to do so out of a compulsion to tell each audience what it wants to hear. Kerry has many gifts, but political courage is not among them. As president, could he take a tough stand and stick with it, even if there were a price to pay for doing so? All the evidence to date says no.
George W. Bush is far from perfect. He refuses to admit mistakes. He resists constructive criticism. His humor can be petty or cutting. His administration is secretive and self-righteous -- traits that presumably start at the top.
But Bush, unlike Kerry, has the courage of his convictions. He can take a strong stand and not run away from it when the political winds shift. On the big issues, the crucial issues, he is a decisive man who means what he says -- and isn't afraid to say it even when his listeners disagree.
For a nation going to the polls in wartime, no issue matters more than character. Kerry has much to recommend him, and Bush's flaws are many. But Bush has the character and backbone of a leader. And Kerry doesn't.

Read more!

There Is No Real Reason to Vote for Kerry

Justifications for backing Kerry fall flat
October 31, 2004
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Reading the media "endorsements" of John Kerry is like having lunch with a woman who wants to tell you about her great new boyfriend. She spends seven-eighths of the time bitching about the old boyfriend -- cocky, hot-headed, insensitive, never wants to listen, never gonna change -- and in the remaining few minutes tries to come up with the new guy's good points:
"Mr. Kerry himself is not a compelling candidate. But this year he offers a --"
Yes?
"-- a respite, a pause for reappraisal."
That's The Economist, pining for a quiet night in.
"What the Republicans tar as waffling strikes us as --"
Hmm. What is le mot juste?
"-- flexibility."
That's my Sun-Times colleagues, looking for a man they -- or, at any rate, Jacques Chirac and Kofi Annan -- can mold.
"According to the Almanac of American Politics, Kerry is 'more respectful of economic free markets' and more inclined to an expansionist foreign policy than --"
Than Ronald Reagan?
"-- than other liberal Democrats."
Oh, well. That's the Des Moines Register, arguing that he doesn't seem like a wimp and a loser if you put him in a room full of even bigger wimps and losers.
"We have misgivings about Kerry's ability to connect with ordinary people. We were frustrated by his long-winded explanations --"
But?
"His zigs and zags reflect his digestion of new information and his arrival at new insights." Honestly, sighs the Virginian Pilot, he only comes over like a snooty windbag because he's so much smarter than us.
"Mr. Kerry's description of the war as a 'diversion' does not inspire confidence in his determination to see it through. But Mr. Kerry has repeatedly pledged not to cut and run from Iraq --"
You're right, says the Washington Post, he has a commitment problem, but we'll work that out after the wedding.
Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan in the New Republic sounds like some blousy torch singer sitting atop the piano in a Jazz Age cabaret doing one of those laundry-list songs ruefully adumbrating her lover's faults: "His record is undistinguished, and where it stands out, mainly regrettable. He intuitively believes that if a problem exists, it is the government's job to fix it. He has far too much faith in international institutions, like the corrupt and feckless U.N., in the tasks of global management. He got the Cold War wrong. He got the first Gulf War wrong --"
If he were Jane Monheit on her excellent new CD, he'd conclude:
"I love him because he's --
I don't know --
Because he's just my Bill."
But, in this case, the point seems to be:
"I love him because he's --
I don't know --
Because he's just not Bush."
Sullivan's big idea is that the best way to force the Democrats to get serious about the war is to put them in charge of it. That's a helluva leap of faith -- and, in John Kerry's case, it's at odds with a 30-year track record of not being serious on the Cold War, Grenada, Central America, the first Gulf War, etc. As Dr. Laura would advise, you should never marry a man in hopes of reforming him.
In that respect, the Qaqaagate story is fascinating. What happened and when in Saddam's al-Qaqaa facility is somewhat murky. Had the shameless gang at "60 Minutes" had their way, the missing explosives story would have aired 36 hours before the polls opened, with no time for anybody to put the alternative to the Bush incompetence scenario -- i.e., that the stuff was moved to Syria before the war began. But never mind that. And never mind that the source for this story is a discredited U.N. official, Mohammed el-Baradei, on whose watch the IAEA not only missed entirely Libya's WMD program but has proved remarkably accommodating of Iran's.
Forget all that. The main problem with this story is that it makes no sense in terms of the Democrats' own narrative. For a year and a half, they've told us there were no WMD, Saddam wasn't a threat, and "BUSH LIED!!!!!!!!!" about it all. I happen to disagree with that, but there's no doubt that simply by hammering it home all day and night the Dems had some effect. Now they're saying whoa, let's back up, yes, as it happens, these non-existent weapons that Bush lied about the non-threatening Saddam having he did, in fact, have -- and that fool Bush let the non-existent weapons get away.
My version of this story -- they were smuggled out to Syria pre-invasion -- fits the Bush view of the war. But Kerry's version of this story undermines the Kerry view of the war -- or, at any rate, the most recent Kerry view of the war. That's the best clue as to the resolve he'd show as President: He has no internal conviction of his own, and so his campaign has run on incoherent reflex oppositionism, as, indeed, his Senate career has -- if America had followed the positions advocated by John Kerry, there would have been no Reagan arms build-up, and the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact would have lingered on, and their clients in Grenada would have destabilized the rest of the Caribbean, and Latin America would not have been democratized, and Saddam Hussein would still be in power and still controlling Kuwait. Kerry's lovebirds at the Washington Post et al. are dreaming of a transformation in their unlovely swain that would be at odds not just with his last three decades but with his last three weeks.
It's only a day or so now till the chad-dangling round of Campaign 2004 begins but, when the lawsuits are over and the bloodletting begins, serious Democrats need to confront the intellectual emptiness of their party, which Kerry's campaign embodies all too well. The Dems got a full tank from FDR, a top-up in the Civil Rights era, and they've been running on fumes for 30 years. Their last star, Bill Clinton, has no legacy because, deft as he was, his Democratic Party had no purpose other than as a vehicle for promoting his own indispensability. When he left, the Democrats became a party running on personality with no personalities to run. Hence, the Kerry candidacy. Despite the best efforts of American editorialists, there's no there there.

Read more!