Yonivore
10-28-2004, 10:26 AM
Another missive (http://www.crushkerry.com/article315.html) from the fine folks at CrushKerry.com
http://www.crushkerry.com/images/topics/Testimony.jpg
How fitting is it that the Kerry campaign is going to crash and burn in this last week because they made a huge deal out of an outright lie by the New York Times and CBS in an effort to defeat the President? Really, it just couldn't have happened any other way. There's an old saying about stuff like this. We're not sure if it's Buddhist, Confucianism or what, and it goes something like this - "Karma's a Bitch".
For the last 2 years or so the left wing America-haters have been spouting lie after ridiculous lie about George Bush. You could say these were the founders of the movement. You know who they are - the Moveon.org crowd, Michael Moore, Al Franken, the list goes on and on. Originally the claims were about things like phantom voter disenfranchisement in Florida during the 2000 election, and that the President let Osama Bin Laden's family leave the country right after September 11 when American flights were grounded.
However, with the sudden and unexpected rise of Howard Dean, we actually found out what we thought was the lunatic fringe was actually the mainstream of the Democratic party. Thus, in order to secure the nomination John Kerry had to join them. That was his first mistake - largely because he was already there, but next to Howlin' Howie he seemed like a fascist.
Thus, Kerry took on the persona and causes of the lying left and made it his campaign platform. However, like the gambler who can't walk away, Kerry spouted one lie too many, and because of it he'll forever be a Senator from Massachusetts.
You can tell just how desperate Kerry has become in the last week or two by the sheer audacity of his lies. Recently he's been scaring people into thinking that the draft is coming back, made unsupported allegations that Bush has a "January Surprise" to reduce social security, charged Bush with having a "secret plan" to raise milk prices in Wisconsin, and claimed that Bush paid more attention to tax cuts for the rich than he did Osama Bin Laden. The list goes on and on.
But Kerry should have quit while he was ahead (or to be more accurate, almost tied). He showed his desperation and willingness to say anything by grabbing onto the "NYTrogate" story way too quickly, even putting out a TV ad in less than a day. By locking himself in that the phantom "disappearance" was the result of Bush's incompetence, he sealed his fate.
In less than 48 hours the story is coming apart faster than a virgin's gown on prom night. You can tell just how bad it is when the publisher of the lie, in this case The New York Times, is retreating quicker than a French soldier.
Let's examine their latest attempt to keep the story going. In the interview three unnamed Iraqi's and a worker at the munitions plant (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/international/middleeast/28bomb.html) to try to show how bad the looting was.
The score in these big heists? What's mentioned in the article is computers, "anything of value" in the office, and things that "looked like artillery". Further, the article mentions "grabbing anything they can find" and tossing unwanted items off of trucks. Hey, it's not 385 tons of dangerous explosives, but it's close enough for an attempted "October Surprise" at the Times.
We're sorry, we shouldn't make fun. We can easily see how a stapler and computers could be mistaken for 385 tons of explosive material. UPDATE: ABC News is now reporting there may have been only 3 tons of explosives at the plant, not 385 (http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&page=1). Hell, the same story was forced to quote the American Commander on the ground to say what is just common sense to us normal folk - that it would have been near impossible to move nearly 400 TONS of explosives on roads being heavily traveled on a daily basis by US armed forces. I mean, it's not as if they were stealing hard to see things.
As the day wore on the story got even flimsier. This report quoting John Shaw, deputy undersecretary of Defense (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041027-101153-4822r.htm) says that the Russians took those explosives to Syria in March, 2003, a month prior to American troops arriving. I guess this showed "incredible incompetence" right Senator Kerry. I mean, how dare he not secure weapons in a place where there were no American troops? Perhaps Senator, the blame for this lies with you and your ilk (http://www.crushkerry.com/article313.html) for insisting for months that we fart around with the corrupt French, Germans and other feckless UN Nations. Senator, will you apologize for this error? Didn't think so.
Next came a report that in February, 2003, two months before the invasion, that Mohammed ElBaradai of the UN Atomic Energy Commission told the UN that Iraq reported the explosives had been transferred for use in quarries (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136745,00.html)" Hmm, doesn't that make it kind of hard to guard stuff at Al-Quqaa when it's really in a quarry (or in Syria)? But we're sure the Senator will run a commercial blaming the President for failing to secure Iraqi quarries.
Hell, even Kerry's own spokespeople admitted they didn't know if the weapons were there when American forces arrived. Richard Holbrooke said on Fox News that: "I don't know what happened" (with regard to when the explosives were removed) (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/839edcfw.asp) and later on, this bombshell from Mike McCurry: "...there is a window that’s available there where either just prior to or just after the invasion, there could have been an opportunity for either Saddam to move the weapons or for something happening after that facility had been abandoned." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/)
Read the highlighted part from McCurry again. They admit the explosives could have been removed by Saddam before the invasion, yet they continue to act as if the President did nothing after the invasion to stop the weapons from being stolen. Only in Kerryland is such logic accepted.
Still, we think the best retort to Senator Kerry was from the President himself in Lancaster today when he said" "Now, the senator is making wild charges about missing explosives. One of his top foreign policy advisors admits he doesn't know the facts. He said, 'I don't know the truth.' End quote. Well, think about that. The senator is denigrating the actions of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts....and a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief" (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/politics/campaign/28bush.html?hp&ex=1098936000&en=aa967d20f8be45c7&ei=5094&partner=homepage) Amen Mr. President.
Thus, a campaign that was built on the lie that the President "lied" about WMD's, that he "rushed to war", and numerous other outrageous lies will have been brought down by the truth. Kerry had a window in these last week to take his best shot and it wasn't (and really still isn't) out of the question he could have pulled it off.
However, a leopard can't change it's spots, and he had to pile on just one more idiotic, outrageous lie, with of course the help of the national press. But we think that when he's alone in one of John Heinz's homes in a few months wondering what might have been, he's going to look back on this last week's events and want to jump off a bridge. But he won't. He'll just get in the 40 foot yacht, on the private jet, or on the $8,000 exercise bike to try to run away from his frustrations. But he won't be able to. He's going to spend the next 30 years of his life regretting he couldn't stop lying for 1 week.
http://www.crushkerry.com/images/topics/Testimony.jpg
How fitting is it that the Kerry campaign is going to crash and burn in this last week because they made a huge deal out of an outright lie by the New York Times and CBS in an effort to defeat the President? Really, it just couldn't have happened any other way. There's an old saying about stuff like this. We're not sure if it's Buddhist, Confucianism or what, and it goes something like this - "Karma's a Bitch".
For the last 2 years or so the left wing America-haters have been spouting lie after ridiculous lie about George Bush. You could say these were the founders of the movement. You know who they are - the Moveon.org crowd, Michael Moore, Al Franken, the list goes on and on. Originally the claims were about things like phantom voter disenfranchisement in Florida during the 2000 election, and that the President let Osama Bin Laden's family leave the country right after September 11 when American flights were grounded.
However, with the sudden and unexpected rise of Howard Dean, we actually found out what we thought was the lunatic fringe was actually the mainstream of the Democratic party. Thus, in order to secure the nomination John Kerry had to join them. That was his first mistake - largely because he was already there, but next to Howlin' Howie he seemed like a fascist.
Thus, Kerry took on the persona and causes of the lying left and made it his campaign platform. However, like the gambler who can't walk away, Kerry spouted one lie too many, and because of it he'll forever be a Senator from Massachusetts.
You can tell just how desperate Kerry has become in the last week or two by the sheer audacity of his lies. Recently he's been scaring people into thinking that the draft is coming back, made unsupported allegations that Bush has a "January Surprise" to reduce social security, charged Bush with having a "secret plan" to raise milk prices in Wisconsin, and claimed that Bush paid more attention to tax cuts for the rich than he did Osama Bin Laden. The list goes on and on.
But Kerry should have quit while he was ahead (or to be more accurate, almost tied). He showed his desperation and willingness to say anything by grabbing onto the "NYTrogate" story way too quickly, even putting out a TV ad in less than a day. By locking himself in that the phantom "disappearance" was the result of Bush's incompetence, he sealed his fate.
In less than 48 hours the story is coming apart faster than a virgin's gown on prom night. You can tell just how bad it is when the publisher of the lie, in this case The New York Times, is retreating quicker than a French soldier.
Let's examine their latest attempt to keep the story going. In the interview three unnamed Iraqi's and a worker at the munitions plant (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/international/middleeast/28bomb.html) to try to show how bad the looting was.
The score in these big heists? What's mentioned in the article is computers, "anything of value" in the office, and things that "looked like artillery". Further, the article mentions "grabbing anything they can find" and tossing unwanted items off of trucks. Hey, it's not 385 tons of dangerous explosives, but it's close enough for an attempted "October Surprise" at the Times.
We're sorry, we shouldn't make fun. We can easily see how a stapler and computers could be mistaken for 385 tons of explosive material. UPDATE: ABC News is now reporting there may have been only 3 tons of explosives at the plant, not 385 (http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=204304&page=1). Hell, the same story was forced to quote the American Commander on the ground to say what is just common sense to us normal folk - that it would have been near impossible to move nearly 400 TONS of explosives on roads being heavily traveled on a daily basis by US armed forces. I mean, it's not as if they were stealing hard to see things.
As the day wore on the story got even flimsier. This report quoting John Shaw, deputy undersecretary of Defense (http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041027-101153-4822r.htm) says that the Russians took those explosives to Syria in March, 2003, a month prior to American troops arriving. I guess this showed "incredible incompetence" right Senator Kerry. I mean, how dare he not secure weapons in a place where there were no American troops? Perhaps Senator, the blame for this lies with you and your ilk (http://www.crushkerry.com/article313.html) for insisting for months that we fart around with the corrupt French, Germans and other feckless UN Nations. Senator, will you apologize for this error? Didn't think so.
Next came a report that in February, 2003, two months before the invasion, that Mohammed ElBaradai of the UN Atomic Energy Commission told the UN that Iraq reported the explosives had been transferred for use in quarries (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136745,00.html)" Hmm, doesn't that make it kind of hard to guard stuff at Al-Quqaa when it's really in a quarry (or in Syria)? But we're sure the Senator will run a commercial blaming the President for failing to secure Iraqi quarries.
Hell, even Kerry's own spokespeople admitted they didn't know if the weapons were there when American forces arrived. Richard Holbrooke said on Fox News that: "I don't know what happened" (with regard to when the explosives were removed) (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/839edcfw.asp) and later on, this bombshell from Mike McCurry: "...there is a window that’s available there where either just prior to or just after the invasion, there could have been an opportunity for either Saddam to move the weapons or for something happening after that facility had been abandoned." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/)
Read the highlighted part from McCurry again. They admit the explosives could have been removed by Saddam before the invasion, yet they continue to act as if the President did nothing after the invasion to stop the weapons from being stolen. Only in Kerryland is such logic accepted.
Still, we think the best retort to Senator Kerry was from the President himself in Lancaster today when he said" "Now, the senator is making wild charges about missing explosives. One of his top foreign policy advisors admits he doesn't know the facts. He said, 'I don't know the truth.' End quote. Well, think about that. The senator is denigrating the actions of our troops and commanders in the field without knowing the facts....and a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your commander in chief" (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/politics/campaign/28bush.html?hp&ex=1098936000&en=aa967d20f8be45c7&ei=5094&partner=homepage) Amen Mr. President.
Thus, a campaign that was built on the lie that the President "lied" about WMD's, that he "rushed to war", and numerous other outrageous lies will have been brought down by the truth. Kerry had a window in these last week to take his best shot and it wasn't (and really still isn't) out of the question he could have pulled it off.
However, a leopard can't change it's spots, and he had to pile on just one more idiotic, outrageous lie, with of course the help of the national press. But we think that when he's alone in one of John Heinz's homes in a few months wondering what might have been, he's going to look back on this last week's events and want to jump off a bridge. But he won't. He'll just get in the 40 foot yacht, on the private jet, or on the $8,000 exercise bike to try to run away from his frustrations. But he won't be able to. He's going to spend the next 30 years of his life regretting he couldn't stop lying for 1 week.