Christopher J. Arndt fights a never ending battle for truth and justice...


Syndication





Blogroll Me!

the so-called Explosives Debacle by the numbers

400 tons of high explosives once existed in a dump in Iraq. They vanished. I want to and intend to cover that in detail later.

Now I link to an article, as a teaser almost. There's no way that these explosives were pulled out from under the noses and out from the notice of the United States Armed Forces. It would take massive resources a great deal of time, effort, expense, and visibility to haul 400 tons of high explosives from this dump. CBS News bullshitted us Thursday night with the assertion that it was possible for many terrorists to graudally empty a dump of 400 tons of H.E. using pick-up trucks.

The explosives vanished before the war. The United Nations report and emphasize this to destablize our own President's efforts to retain his seat? The Interenational Atomic Energy Agency is telling lies for some reason. The Senator challenging the President for the office is using this event and status as a blunt club during his late election stumps. "Sen. Kerry knows this is a bogus issue. And he doesn't care. He's willing to accuse our troops of negligence and incompetence to further his political career. Of course, he did that once before." Not only does he do that, but he insists the troops are doing a fine job and blames this on the current POTUS. No President would or should ever micromanage as tightly as to be responsible for what Kerry insists the President is responsible for letting happen.

Unless the President was on the field with binoculars he is not responsible for this little thing anymore than he is for other little things. Especially since it's not a failure of American tacticians so it's not the fault of the President at all. Regardless of the lies of John Kerry.

posted by Chris Arndt at 10/29/2004 03:39:00 AM | |

words of wisdom from Chuck Dixon

"Quick! Name two strong democratic allies of the United States! Germnay and Japan! How’d they get that way? Saturation bombing and fixed bayonets. And I guess our own pursuit of democracy was a non-violent affair. And Four score and twenty later we persuaded the South to preserve out democratic union with sugar cookies."

- October 26th, 2004

posted by Chris Arndt at 10/29/2004 03:06:00 AM | |

"I'll find them and I'll kill them," - John Kerry

Posted on October 26, 2004 at 08:58:35 AM by Chuck Dixon

This new campaign promise appearing in ads for Johnny Windsurf manages to be stupid, silly and scary all at the same time.
Only the mind of James Carville could have come up with something this blunt, this dumb and this disingenuous.
It's a sad effort to make us all forget that John Kerry who voted to weaken our military, spoke of our soldiers as baby killers and worse, voted to appease communism, voted to end the arms race and promises to ask the UN for permission to retaliate the next time we're attacked.
And where will he go hunting for terrorists with his goose gun? Well, if they're hiding anywhere but Afghanistan then they're in luck! He only intends to look there. The fact that Osama is currently hiding in Northern Pakistan is immaterial. John Kerry only wants to look in Afghanistan. Forget the fact that we have hunter/killer teams in countries all over the world kakking terrorists every day. Forget the thousands of extremists, America-haters, riotmongers and hooligans that have already taken the big adios in Iraq. Johnny Ketchup's comin' to town! There's gonna be a NEW sheriff. NOW we're gonna see some action, boy!
But ONLY if they're hiding in a country that the UN says it's okay to look in. The UN which is gonna help us establish democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan even though most of its member nations are NOT democracies. Even though many of its members openly harbor or sanction or sponsor terrorism themselves. Even though it's an organization that Lewis Carroll might have imagined where Libya once headed up the Human Rights Division and the invasion of Iraq prevented Saddam from being next in line for the same position. After all, during the Cold War, Cuba was the head of the NON-alligned nations!
If Johnny DickCheney'sdaughterisalesbian gets in the Oval Office we'll have to change God Bless America to God Tests America.

source IP: 4.238.238.159

posted by Chris Arndt at 10/29/2004 02:58:00 AM | |

Ranting about Raving

Glenn Reynolds recommends this History of Raves. It's neat and full of cultural stuff. Actually it's a balanced analysis and not a rant at all.

posted by Chris Arndt at 10/27/2004 05:18:00 PM | |

No time for Kerry's Europhile delusions

The following is an article written by Mark Steyn that I have reprinted here without permission, only because the Chicago Sun-Times apparently does not keep archives of such material as regular policy. Therefore I am archiving it here. My opinions reflect Mr. Steyn's almost exactly. Original URL: http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn24.html

October 24, 2004

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Maybe I'm getting old. I've been covering politics for 53 years, and that's just since John Kerry's convention speech. I'm sick of this election, even before the Democratic Party's chad-diviners have managed to extend it to mid-December. These are serious times and the senator is not a serious man. And so we have a campaign that has a sharper position on Mary Cheney's lesbianism and the deficiencies of Laura Bush's curriculum vitae than on the central question of the age.

There are legitimate differences of opinion about the war, but they don't include Kerry's silly debater's points. On the one hand, the Tora borer drones that Bush "outsourced" the search for Osama bin Laden to the Afghans, though at the time he supported it ("It is the best way to protect our troops," he said in December 2001. "I think we have been doing this pretty effectively."). But, on the other, he claims he's going to outsource Iraq to the French and the Germans, though neither of them wants anything to do with it.

As for this Bush-failed-to-get-bin-Laden business, 2-1/2 years ago I declared that Osama was dead and he's never written to complain. There's no more evidence for his present existence than there is for the Loch Ness monster, which at least does us the courtesy of showing up as a indistinct gray blur on a photograph every now and again. Osama is lying low because he's in no condition to get up.

But, even if he weren't, that's a frivolous reductive way of looking at this war. He's not a general or head of state; he can't sign an instrument of surrender, and make all the unpleasantness go away. The enemy is an ideology that appeals to various loose groupings from the Balkans to Indonesia, as well as to entrepreneurial free-lancers like the shooter who killed two people at LAX on July 4, 2002. If Kerry's oft-repeated "outsourcing Osama" crack is genuinely felt, it shows he doesn't get this war. And, if it's just cheapo point scoring, it's pathetic.

Almost everything falls into that category. Iraq's messy. So? What isn't? America has no Colonial Office, no political administrators with decades of experience in far-flung climes; its occupation of Iraq was learnt on the fly, because there was no other way. But the ludicrous defeatism over what's at worst a partial success is unbecoming to a great nation. If the present Democratic-media complex had been around earlier, America would never have mustered the will to win World War II or, come to that, the Revolutionary War. There would be no America. You'd be part of a Greater Canada, with Queen Elizabeth on your coins and government health care.

Speaking of which, if there's four words I never want to hear again, it's "prescription drugs from Canada." I'm Canadian, so I know a thing or two about prescription drugs from Canada. Specifically speaking, I know they're American; the only thing Canadian about them is the label in French and English. How can politicians from both parties think that Americans can get cheaper drugs simply by outsourcing (as John Kerry would say) their distribution through a Canadian mailing address? U.S. pharmaceutical companies put up with Ottawa's price controls because it's a peripheral market. But, if you attempt to extend the price controls from the peripheral market of 30 million people to the primary market of 300 million people, all that's going to happen is that after approximately a week and a half there aren't going to be any drugs in Canada, cheap or otherwise -- just as the Clinton administration's intervention into the flu-shot market resulted in American companies getting out of the vaccine business entirely.

The war against the Islamists and the flu-shot business are really opposite sides of the same coin. I want Bush to win on Election Day because he's committed to this war and, as the novelist and Internet maestro Roger L. Simon says, "the more committed we are to it, the shorter it will be.'' The longer it gets, the harder it will be, because it's a race against time, against lengthening demographic, economic and geopolitical odds. By "demographic," I mean the Muslim world's high birth rate, which by mid-century will give tiny Yemen a higher population than vast empty Russia. By "economic," I mean the perfect storm the Europeans will face within this decade, because their lavish welfare states are unsustainable on their shriveled post-Christian birth rates. By "geopolitical," I mean that, if you think the United Nations and other international organizations are antipathetic to America now, wait a few years and see what kind of support you get from a semi-Islamified Europe.

So this is no time to vote for Europhile delusions. The Continental health and welfare systems John Kerry so admires are, in fact, part of the reason those societies are dying. As for Canada, yes, under socialized health care, prescription drugs are cheaper, medical treatment's cheaper, life is cheaper. After much stonewalling, the Province of Quebec's Health Department announced this week that in the last year some 600 Quebecers had died from C. difficile, a bacterium acquired in hospital. In other words, if, say, Bill Clinton had gone for his heart bypass to the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal, he would have had the surgery, woken up the next day swimming in diarrhea and then died. It's a bacterium caused by inattention to hygiene -- by unionized, unsackable cleaners who don't clean properly; by harassed overstretched hospital staff who don't bother washing their hands as often as they should. So 600 people have been killed by the filthy squalor of disease-ridden government hospitals. That's the official number. Unofficially, if you're over 65, the hospitals will save face and attribute your death at their hands to "old age" or some such and then "lose" the relevant medical records. Quebec's health system is a lot less healthy than, for example, Iraq's.

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

posted by Chris Arndt at 10/25/2004 02:42:00 AM | |

John Kerry's Trip To Israel

How genuine is his grasp of Israeli politics? How well does he know its needs and its security concerns? How real were his tears?

posted by Chris Arndt at 10/25/2004 02:32:00 AM | |

the John Kerry Campaign versus Free Speech?

David Frum discuss the Kerry Campaign's victory over Sinclair Broadcasting. Sinclair was going to broadcast a documentary or movie-length program critical of the Senator; after various attempts to stop them... they were stopped. Oddly, right-wingers can't do that so invisibly. At least it seems so. What's the public opinion of the last group that attempted to boycott Fahrenheit 9/11?

posted by Chris Arndt at 10/24/2004 05:34:00 PM | |

John Kerry and the United Nations versus the Value of Life?

Did Senator Kerry mean to say this or did he just screw up? Rather was he sincere in his statement? Apparently he stated that any cause that an American soldier fights and dies for is not worthwhile unless the fighting is at the grace of the United Nation and alongside soldiers of other countries. In effect, the soldiers are wasted, worthless, unless the cause is blessed, justified by the UN (regardless of right and wrong). He's compared the value of American soldiers' lives and deeds to the blessing of the UN and our men come up short in his comparison.

So did Senator Kerry intend to say that and did he believe that? Did he misspeak? Would it be wrong to hold it against him?

It's an interesting question because as the POTUS Kerry would be the leader of our country. The leader of our country should never cow-tow to the United Nations of the UN Security Council. I could easily dismiss a comment praising the UN over our own national will as a misstep if it weren't for a record including a young Lt. Kerry telling us all that American forces "should only be deployed at UN direction".

Kerry, of course, stated that he would never give other nations "veto power over our own national security" but he talks about his "global test". If the global test is not a measure of foreign support of our own interests and action in the name of national security, then it's meaningless noise.

I'd prefer it to be meaningless noise otherwise failure to pass meaningful "global tests" could lead to our safety being hampered.

posted by Chris Arndt at 10/24/2004 04:58:00 PM | |

Eric Spratling on Jon Stewart

The Condiment King posted an entry on the Dixonverse Message Board stating that Jon Stewart is is personal hero and subsequently laid down the public challenge to convince that Stewart is a "media puppet". Eric Spratling responded

Puppet?

Stewart isn't a puppet. Jon Stewart is, in fact, in my estimation a very funny personality and a supremely talented comedian. And the Daily Show is written by some very funny people.

However, they just let their hatred show too much. I used to watch it all the time when I was a bit younger, but after so long the gratuitous liberalism went from being an aspect of the show's commentary to practically replacing it. I'm serious: Stewart would half the time just repeat liberal talking points with a smartass tone of voice, and the audience cheered. It wasn't even phrased cleverly. Example:

[clip of President Bush talking]
Bush: "Ever since I was elected, I've increased education spending by-"
[clip cuts off back to Stewart]
Stewart: "You weren't elected!"
[audience CHEERS]

The show just grew eventually so venomous and bitter that I stopped watching it altogether-- although admittedly, this was partly helped to me not having cable anymore. But every time I catch it now and then, I'm reminded of why I'm not watching it.

I haven't actually SEEN Stewart's appearance on Crossfire, but I did read a transcript. It was almost painful the way he ambushed those guys. Reading Stewart's "accusations" against Crossfire (which I don't watch either) was flat-out laughable; he didn't really get out any specifics of why they're "hurting America" (good Lord, can you IMAGINE the outcry if the situation were reversed and a conservative had been shouting that at the liberal half of Crossfire?) just the usual litany of class warfare applause lines. The evil "corporate media" is just so big and mean that they're leaving us "ordinary folks" out there to "mow our lawns". As if Stewart even has a lawn in his high-rise New York penthouse. It was all just bland rah-rah populist empowerment language I'd heard a zillion times before.

And folks, this is coming from someone who cannot STAND watching the news either! Like I said, I don't have cable, but whenever I catch some CNN or FOX News or even local stuff, I'm usually horrified by just how juvenile, sensationalistic and stupid it all is. I hate the flashy graphics, news crawls, pretty anchors, and generally ill-informed mainstream media reporters like nobody's business. I hate the way the press basically sets or tries to set the agenda for what's important enough for the public to be paying attention to; can someone please explain to me WHY exactly I should be paying particular attention to trials over Laci Petersen and Lori Hacking, or what Paris Hilton is up to on any given day (actually, why is that completely useless whore even famous in the first place?!)??

A while ago I was in a lobby waiting for my car to be fixed, and CNN was on. They had a reporter on the floor of the frigging Republican National Convention, and what was he talking about? The Kobe Bryant case. Bite me, TV media. This is why I get my news from the Internet.

But Stewart's not helping a damn thing in this regard either. If anything, he may actually be contributing MORE to the downward spiral of political discourse. For goodness' sake, the Daily Show staff's idea of hard-hitting political analysis is to play a clip of Bush fumbling during a speech, and then cut back to Jon Stewart laughing at him! This isn't even good satire, let alone good discourse.

Just about everyone knows deep down that it's just about impossible for a man to receive the education that Bush has, been at all the business stations in life that Bush has, and ascended to as high an office as Bush has, if he were genuinely "stupid" (and by "stupid" I don't just mean that you disagree with his outlook on life or how the country should be run, I mean actual, honest-to-gosh DUMB. By way of an example: I believe that Jimmy Carter was one of the most--if not the most-- singularly incompetent people to ever sit in the Oval Office, but when I say that I don't mean that he was a drooling idiot; I mean that his way of conducting policy at home and around the world was simply wrong in every possible sense-- he was certainly a very well-educated and pious man, besides that). Yet when I have actual political discussions with real actual people, I'm always left on the defense as to proving why George Bush isn't so stupid that he can't tie his shoes without Karl Rove's help. And before I can even finish telling them, "The man graduated from Yale and Harvard, you numbskulls!" I get the typical response back that "daddy" "bought" W's grades. They don't even stop to think how outlandish an accusation that is to make, because it's become just an accepted assumption amongst the Smirking Class of political discussion represented none better than by Jon Stewart.

Jonah Goldberg (a conservative, and someone who's actually both an intelligent political pundit AND funny-- on a rare appearance on the Daily Show, in fact, Goldberg matched Stewart nearly laugh for laugh) once had a perfect summation (certainly better than my rambling post here) for this "movement" represented by Al Franken, Garofalo, et al. They get to say whatever they want about Republicans: we're mean nasty retarded evil racist homophobic troglodyte bigoted Nazis who like to eat babies, and they get applauded for their "political insight". Yet if someone questions them on their dubious assertions or demogogic rhetoric, they just look bewildered and hide behind being a "comedian." Didn't like what they say? Well, you just didn't "get the joke".

Jon Stewart is hilarious and gifted, but if anyone thinks that his whole "funniest smart man in comedy" (or whatever) label hasn't gone to his head... well, I'd like to sell you some oceanfront property a couple miles away from my campus. And if Jon Stewart actually thinks he's earned that label for any other reason than because he tells liberals exactly what they want to hear... then maybe you'll end up neighbors with him.

I concur with Mr. Spratling for the most part. I, however, have had less exposure to Mr. Stewart's program and from what little exposure I've had to the Daily Show, I don't see him as that funny. I just can't. I can't believe he's a "media puppet" but I don't see how this leftist was judged funny enough to host thirty minutes of comedy; I can see ten minutes, but not thirty.

source IP: 68.104.190.248
Posted on October 23, 2004 at 04:12:56 PM

posted by Chris Arndt at 10/24/2004 03:53:00 AM | |

Are You Insane?

If you vote for George W. Bush, John Edwards believes you are.

The Junior Senator apparently has a ton of respect for the electorate; it's just too conditional to be inoffensive.

posted by Chris Arndt at 10/24/2004 03:48:00 AM | |

Disturbing and Infuriating

The British left-wing newspaper The Guardian has apparently called for the assassination of the President of the United States.

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

They're apparently sincere; Jonah Goldberg pointed out that "sane and professional newspaper" would let this be published without serious consequences, including firings. It is disgusting; they should be ashamed.

I would hope that the point doesn't need to be emphasized. These people (in effect) called for the murder of our President. They called for the brutal attack on our leadership in the name of the world good. This is inflammatory and cowardly.

Others' comments

Andrew Stuttaford: "it’s difficult not to conclude that the writer is badly in need of a straitjacket, a sedative and a nice cup of tea."

K-Lo: "It's hard to be outraged anymore by the media, but that is unrivaled."

Jonah Goldberg does add that it's "pathetic" that the writer is all talk and apparnetly isn't willing to try the deed himself, if he believes that it would be for the greater good; then again we both appreciate the image of the man running into the Secret Service and enjoying some good ol' interrogation.

Scott Burgess prints the contact information of the coward in question.

The writer is named Charlie Brooker and he may be reached at charlie.brooker@zeppotron.com. Complaints about Guardian content should "be sent to the Readers' Editor, Ian Mayes" - reader@guardian.co.uk

posted by Chris Arndt at 10/24/2004 03:02:00 AM | |

Sins of the Mothers?

Susan Konig comments about the recent verbal assaults on the First Lady and the Second Lady by the challengers' loudmouth wives.

This, I think, marks the first presidential campaign in modern history in which both of the wives of one ticket's candidates have gone out of their way to blatantly insult the wives of the other's.

Better half, my eye!

If these ladies do represent the better halves of the Kerry-Edwards ticket God only help our international relations!

As a more serious summary, Mrs. Kerry has an odd definition of "real job" and Mrs. Edwards accused Mrs. Cheney of not loving her daughter.

posted by Chris Arndt at 10/22/2004 02:56:00 AM | |

Apologies Delivered Lamely by Mrs. Kerry

After her casual and uncouth dismissal of the First Lady's hard work and history, Teresa Heinz Kerry offers up what Barbara Comstock calls "a lame apology". Mrs. Comstock and Karen Hughes (a senior Bush campaign adviser) both point out that Mrs. Kerry leaves in the air any comment that full-time mothers are not doing full-time jobs. It was disrespectful in the first place to suggest that librarians and teachers are not doing real work, but one wonders the quality of Mrs. Kerry as a woman when she downplays the role of mothers; I emphasize that Mrs. Kerry has not apologized for dismissing Mrs. Bush's role and position of motherhood, even if she innocently forgot about the First Lady's other past occupations, as she claims. Barbara Comstock:

Most of us moms — whether working moms or stay-at-home moms (I've been both) — consider that occupation more than a full-time job. Then again, most of us don't have the staff of six that, as the New York Times reports, accommodate every whim of Teresa Heinz's and John Kerry's at their many mansions around the country.

Karen Hughes:

"I think it's very nice that she apologized, but in some ways the apology almost made the comment worse because she seems to have forgotten that being a mother is a real job," Hughes told CNN. "I think it's just unfortunate to try to disparage women who have made the choice of making their families a priority."

Is John Kerry's household out of touch?

posted by Chris Arndt at 10/22/2004 02:33:00 AM | |

the PC Crowd Sides with the Witches Against Halloween

A school district justifies their cancelling children's Halloween celebrations as to avoid offending witches.

Oh no, we can't offend the Wiccans! How blasted stupid. They're stupid. They take up what is essentially symbolized now as horror characters and humorous bits... and whine that we should shun tradition so they're feelings won't be hurt.

You step in shit, we'll call you on the smell.

posted by Chris Arndt at 10/22/2004 02:19:00 AM | |

Curt Schilling Says the Right Things!

A quick-witted young man, Curt Schilling proves that there'll be one more on the popular vote count for the President from Boston.

To him, things aren't "Bush-league" when they're pitiful... he knows they're "Kerry-league".

posted by Chris Arndt at 10/22/2004 02:04:00 AM | |

Wednesday Wundown

Jimmy Carter says our Revolution was an unncessary war, making us wonder how someone apparently this stupid ever got to be President. He also claims that neither the American Civil War and the Second World War rank as high regarding bloody wars are much as we once thought.

We can note that Curt Schilling is indeed a hero, as much as sportsmen can be heroes within an athletic profession... he worked through tremendous pain to deal the Yankees a righteous defeat, something that we were all thankful for.

Last night I saw that Mr. Schilling thanked God and noted that he could not have won without Him. First, his gratitude sounded more genuine and sincere than any profession of faith that John Kerry has recently made. Second, it may be theologically foggy here but it appears that God beat the Yankees. Seriously Mr. Schilling did something rather tremendous given his injuries and I would have little doubt that God sustained him, for whatever purpose.



posted by Chris Arndt at 10/20/2004 05:50:00 PM | |

What a Bitch...

Teresa Heinz Kerry on First Lady Laura Bush

I don't know that she's ever had a real job — I mean, since she's been grown up. So her experience and her validation comes from important things, but different things. And I'm older, and my validation of what I do and what I believe and my experience is a little bit bigger

I know that Mrs. Bush has been a teacher and a librarian and I'd damned if being a housewife isn't real work. I'm wonder that Mrs. Kerry is--does "philanthropist" compare to teacher or librarian?

posted by Chris Arndt at 10/20/2004 02:13:00 PM | |

the Power of Kerry's Words - Haiti

Senator Kerry has said a lot of things in his bid for the Presidency. Most of this stuff almost certainly seems off-the-cuff as reactions to something the actual President did or said in the course of administrating the country. What makes this dangerous is that what the Presidential contender says actually has an effect in other places. According to some, John Kerry's theoretical treatment of a deposed leader has led to increased bloodshed and chaos in Haiti. Rather, one of Kerry's hypothetical "if -I-was-President-today" speeches led directly to violence and people committing acts of violence because of the hope that speaker gave them.

So bloody, violent, rabble-rousers and supporters of an apparently inadequate former President support John Kerry (for their own sakes) and the Senator should really watch what he says.

His words are being heard by outside ears.

posted by Chris Arndt at 10/18/2004 01:30:00 PM | |

Ed Koch's Personal Convictions, Rational Priorites and John Kerry versus Israel

This is one of a number of things that I have been sitting on too long.

Ed Koch is a liberal whose attitudes and opinions have not changed and he's a leftist with whom I share very, very few opinions. We'd disagree on many issues, especially social issues and likely some areas of fiscal policy. His differences on these with issues with many Republicans and Conservatives are why he's a Democrat and a liberal. But he is "a liberal with sanity".

I'll note that while I find many things wrong with being "a liberal" I have no idea why liberals would be ashamed of being liberals or would balk at be called liberals.

Ignore that. Ed Koch prioritizes and thus compromises. He believes that the President has the best take on national security on our current war. For that he'll set aside his many other differences in politics just to insure what he believes is best for his safety, and of greater import, the safety of his loved ones.

Despite accusations that he has changed or that he has turned his back on the party, I'd agree with him that his Party has changed and instead of individual Democrats seeking and embracing individual issues, especially the war, we have a good deal of Partisans being just that and playing Party Politics. They'll back Senator Kerry out of Party loyalty and not out of a sense of right and wrong or personal conviction.

Moreover Mr. Koch has a stance of Israel and wants what's best for that country and believes that Sen. Kerry is not what is best for Israel. He may take heat for it but at least he's making his own judgement. For that those supposedly on his end of the spectrum turn on him.

It's similar to Zell Miller. Ed Koch is the former mayor of New York, we should know.

posted by Chris Arndt at 10/16/2004 01:23:00 PM | |

These Punks Have No Respect At All.....

The State News has published a nasty little litany by one of their child writers regarding the President of the United States and the supposed heroics of Senator John Kerry.

Johnny Rotten's a hero of mine. He's proof that a scrawny kid with a penchant for confrontation can change the world.

He was the singer for the Sex Pistols - the pioneers of punk and arguably the most influential band of all time. They existed for only two years, recorded one album, and yet kick-started a key transitional period in English history. How'd they do that, you ask?

If there's one thing Rotten knew how to do, it was how to effectively - and publicly - vent his anger and frustration with the system that let him and his country down. Others who felt the same realized it was OK to be angry. In no time, Rotten began a movement that dared to rebel against the patriarchs responsible for the political, economic and cultural backdrop that plagued England in the mid-70s.

There's no real relevance here, except that the boy likes his old anti-establishment rockers. Mr. Rotten, ultimately isn't too impressive.

We face similar times today in America. An oil pimp and his hoes have abused power and a national tragedy to carry out personal agendas, threatening the integrity and future of our great nation in the process. (emphasis mine)

This is how Salisbury refers to the President of the United States of America. That disrespectful little shit. Heaven only knows what those personal agendas might be. It might be for oil... except that if the Iraq war was for oil gas prices would be getting cheaper and the supposed "hoes" wouldn't be losing money.

The people are confused, angry and don't really know what to do about it, other than to vote for John Kerry in November.

In other words, Kerry's our de facto Rotten. It's his job to rile us up and get us mad at the system. It's his job to represent and harness the people's fury with their leader that's been playing political power games.

Oooooo. John Kerry, super-hero for today's modern times.

Too bad he sucks at it. Seriously, this guy couldn't light a crowd on fire with napalm. As far as I'm concerned, he hasn't been winning these debates. When you're running against the worst president in American history, there shouldn't be a dead heat among voters for the best choice.

Salisbury recognizes that Kerry is a robot, wooden at best; Kerry is losing the debates; how in Hades is President Bush the worst American President in history? If you don't have the political or historical competence to recall James Buchanan then perhaps you shouldn't be making absolute declarations about history.

not all hope is lost... Kerry used to be quite the young rebel against the establishment. Yes, as ridiculous as it may sound, I believe a Johnny Rotten exists inside Johnny Kerry. Allow me to illustrate my point.

Salisbury is going to refer to the Winter Soldier Investigations and the Vietnam War.

In 1971, John Kerry returned from his duty in he Vietnam War angry and disappointed in the military for unnecessary cruelty against innocent Vietnamese and the government for continuing to fight the war. He spoke passionately at anti-war rallies, eloquently debated pro-war speakers on television and unapologetically presented his experiences and beliefs to the very architects of the war.

Kerry was an original gangsta in the anti-war movement. He was double-brave - brave to serve in the war and even braver to come back opposing it - an incredibly unpopular stance to have at the time. He truly was a hero.

John Kerry was arguably a magnificent traitor to his country. He's no hero. I'll recant. Perhaps the wretched man could be called heroic for his four months of combat duty; that's 1/3 of a full combat tour, folk. I don't criticize his combat duty; others do that and they are more qualified to say it than I. During his time still as an officer in the Navy, Lt Kerry met with representatives of the enemy. I don't criticize Kerry for going into Vietnam, that's braver than I. I criticize him for sitting down for a nice meal with the leaders of the people shooting at our soldiers, his so-called "Band of Brothers". Worse, his testimony wasn't heroic. John Kerry took the atrocities being committed in Vietnam and exaggerated them based on the testimonies of so-called Veterans.

John Kerry was point man of Vietnam Veterans Against The War. That group held the "Winter Soldier Investigations" wherein "veterans", mostly fakes and imposters, gave "testimonies" regarding atrocities that they committed or witnessed and it is these reports, the results of the Winter Soldier hoax, which Kerry fed to Congress during those hearings... and as a result exaggerated the crimes of such soldiers into crimes by most soldiers and slandered nearly an entire generation of American soldiers!

It was him and his goons that made it palatable for people to spit on our own defenders and handily label them baby-killers. John Kerry is no hero. Whatever heroism he may lay claim to from his acts as one of our nation's defenders is handily negated by his slandering of the rest.

years of elections and self-promotion playing the pandering politician game, Kerry's become the equivalent of a can of Budweiser: bland, watered-down and advertised to us like we're morons. The inspiration is gone and all that's left is another cheap Washington suit.

It's been argued here among other places that John Kerry's aspirations were always political and that the War was just another step towards holding public office; Kerry never changed. He has always been a politician at heart when not in fact.

There shouldn't be a swing voter this election, but Kerry's inability to get mad and destroy this ethnocentric, two-dimensional moron is turning what should be a turkey shoot for him into a close, scary situation. (emphasis mine)

This is how he refers to the President.

What does it say about Kerry's wisdom and courage when he doesn't strike back against personal attacks? How can he just allow them to call a war hero a coward? Why isn't he pointing out Bush's incompetence? Why doesn't he point out the ways Bush has flip-flopped?

It's likely because he can't. He can't strike back against personal attacks that may be true. He can't strike back against those calling him anything (Lord knows when anyone called him a coward... but Salisbury is not in the habit of backing up his vague arguments) because that would mean acknowledging those attacking him... which would be, politically, a mistake. He's actually said that the President is an incompetent and the riff only sticks with his base... and not far beyond. And no one as inconsistent as Kerry can take the chance by accusing his opponent of being inconsistent... especially when the President has been a lot more than the Senator.

Kerry has so much ammunition against this little creep. What is it going to take to get him to use it?

Ah. This is a poor article. He speaks as if the challenger is naturally higher than the incumbent and not aspiring to take his place. Let's put it in plain English. The President is not denying Kerry his natural ascension. The President isn't being smacked totally because there's too much there. Kerry has the reputation of being a grand speaker and a grand debater. He's exercised those powers to the fullest and he's only taken the President to a draw.

Why is that? It's because there's only so far that one can go on rhetoric.

At the end, Salisbury calls the POTUS a dog. I can't believe the State News is still hiring these amateurs.


posted by Chris Arndt at 10/15/2004 03:01:00 AM | |